Download - s rrvKTHIS THESIS riAS BEEN ACCEPTED
An Empirical Investigation of non-economic
Motives of Housing allocation in Residential
Areas of Nairobi
By
Lucy W. Njenga
B .A . Land Economics (Hons.) Nairobi, 1986THIS THESIS riAS BEEN ACCEPTEDs rrvK
oKjve^ ty uboar^ IJLAtED *N
POh
TiJJ5-
A Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of Master of Arts in
Housing Administration in the Department Of Land Development at the University of Nairobi.
MARCH 1991
(ii)
DECLARATION
I, LUCY W. NJENGA, hereby declare that thi thesis is my original work and has not bee presented for a degree in any other Univer
DECLARATION OF SUPERVISOR
This thesis has been submitted for examina- with my approval as University Supervisor.
Prof. G.K. King'oriah
(iii)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was made possible by the generous
scholarship awarded to me by the University of Nairobi to whom I am very grateful.
I take this opportunity to thank members of
staff of the Department of Land Development for the
guidance which was always readily given whenever I sought it. Very special thanks are due to my Supervisor
Prof. G.K. King'oriah for his valuable guidance and
encouragement during the entire period of this study,
of particular significance is the expediency with which he handled my script whenever given to him, this
invaluable assistance is greatly appreciated.
I would like to thank my second supervisor
Mr. W.H.A. Olima for the assistance he gave me for the
short period he was around during this study.
Many people have assisted in various ways towards
the completion of this work. It is impossible to mention
all of them. I am grateful to those friends who showed
interest in my work and to those who assisted in one
way or other during collection of data. I am also
thankful to the residents of the areas I studied for their co-operation.
(iv)
I thank my family, and in particular my parents
for their worthy investment in my education as well as
the faith they have had in my ability. Special thanks
to my husband E. K. Maruti for the support and encourage
ment he has given me during the entire course of this
study and with him, my daughter Ida and son Jesse whom
I have frequently stayed away from while working on this thesis.
Last but not least, many thanks to Isabel Kihumba and Victoria Kamau for their patience while typing thiswork.
(V)
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to my dear parents Timan Njenga Gicharu and Mary Wanjiru Njenga for their great encouragement.
ABSTRACT
In most urban areas, residential land use takes up the highest proportion of land. The
residential accommodation comprises flats, detached
and semi-detached houses on differing sizes of land.
The heterogeneity of this accommodation reflects not
only decisions taken by households at some time but
also diversity in income, family structure, tastes
and preferences as well as other socio-economic
characteristics of households.
Sociologists and city planners have used an
economic theory to contribute to the theory of
residential location which depends on the assumption
that as the population of a city grew and the housing stock increased, the newest dwellings would always be
occupied by the high income groups and that as the
dwellings aged, they would filter down through the
population, becoming cheaper and cheaper and being
occupied successively by households of lower and
lower incomes. The pattern of location of households
with differing incomes would be determined by the
pattern of growth of the city in the past. Many of
these theories have concentrated upon institutional
(vii)
analysis to the exclusion of the individual actor.
This study wishes to analyse the individual aspects of residential mobility and preferences in the process
of residential location. The fact that residential
accommodation in different parts of Nairobi is
heterogeneous reflects not only that decisions are
made with reference to choice of accommodation by
each household but also differences in income, capital
accumulation, family structure etc. of these households.
In making residential choices, households do not make decisions in a vacuum, rather the
preferences that they express and the constraints
that they experience are moulded by the nature of
the wider social structure and by the immediate effects of the specific character of certain systems of housing
production and allocation. This study sets out to
examine the factors responsible for the current pattern of residential locations in Nairobi, more
specifically, to analyse the factors that households
consider in locating in a certain area and in a
particular house. This is therefore a study on
residential location based upon the survey, evaluation
and comparison of eleven (11) localities selected
from the metropolitan area of Nairobi, Kenya. These
localities represent the full range of residential
(viii)
developments of Nairobi, planned and unplanned
neighbourhoods, lowest to highest densities and lowest to highest incomes.
The results from the eleven residential
areas studied have revealed that although people
of all socio-economic levels aspire to good quality
housing with complementary facilities most people
want a satisfactory physical and social environment,
however, the degree to which this desire is satisfied
is strongly related to the socio-economic stage that
each house has reached. This study contends, that
the socio-economic status of a household influences
the choice of residential location. While lower
income households tend to make developed residential
location decisions which are influenced by such basic
aspects as space, rent and distance to work, higher
income households have more 'luxurious' factors such
as neighbourhood and better house designs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THESIS TITLE ................................ (i)
DECLARATION ................................ (ii)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................... (iii)DEDICATION ................................ (iv)
A B S T R A C T ..................................... (vi)
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................... (ix)
LIST OF MAPS ................................ (xii)
LIST OF DIAGRAMS ........................... (xiii)
LIST OF TABLES................. ........... (xiv)
DEFINITION OF TERMS........................... (xv)
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Problem Identification .. .. 1
Hypothesis .. .. . . .. 2
Study Objectives .. . . .. 3
The Study Area .. .. .. .. 3
Organisation of Study . . . . 4
Scope of Study .. .. . . . . 5
Research Methodology . . .. 6
Footnotes .. .. .. .. .. 15
PAGE
(X)
CHAPTER TWO: THEORY OF RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
Introduction
Burgess and the Concentric * . Zone Theory ..
Hoyt and the Radial Sector Theory
The Trade-Off Theory
Harris and Ullman's Multiple Nuclei Theory
Other Determinants of Location
Dominance, Gradient and Segregation
Centralisation andDecentralisation ...........
Invasion and Succession
Human Ecological ApproachSocial Area Analysis .........
Factorial Ecologies .........
Historical Development of Nairobi's Residential Patterns
Nairobi, Metropolitan Growth Strategy
Footnotes
16
17
22
25
26
29
30
32
33
3435
36
37
48
59
PAGE
(Xi)
CHAPTER THREE: THE URBAN HOUSING MARKET
Introduction
The housing Market
Consumer Theory and Housingdemand ...........
Determinants of Demand
Housing Supply Factors
Determinants of Supply
Filtering ..
The Housing situation in
Nairobi ...........Footnotes . .
CHAPTER FOUR: CASE STUDY
Introduction
Data Analysis Summary
Footnotes ..
PAGE
6264
69727580
83
8895
98100
192
197
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Main Findings
Recommendations
Areas of further Research
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................
198
205
209
211
APPENDICES 118
LIST OF MAPS
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Nairobi Boundary changes since 1900 ......................
Nairobi, Existing administrative boundaries .................
Nairobi, Population densities ..
49
50
92
PAGE
Map 4 Nairobi, Residential areas
(x indicates study areas) 101
Diagram 1
Diagram 2
Diagram 3
PageBurgess Concentric Zone Theory .. .. 18
Hoyt's Radial Sector Theory .. .. 23
Harris and Ullman's Multiple
Nuclei Theory . . . . ........... 27
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
or First Kov
LIST OF TABLES
Table :
Table '
Tables
Table 4
Tables
Table 4
Tables
Table 4
Tables
Tables
Tables
Tables
Table
Table
Table
Table - Table 4,
3.1 Income Levels in Wage
Employment Sector inNairobi for 1980 90
3.2 Estimated Increase in
Households in NairobiKenya 1971 - 1985 94
4.1 - 4.3 Distribution of House Types 103,104
1.4 Distribution of Types of
Interviewees 105
4.5 - 4.7 Family Sizes 107-109
.8 Ages of Family Members 111
4.9 - 4.10 Ages of Household Heads .. 112
.11 Distribution of Ages of
Household Heads 114
4.12 - 4.14 Education Levels 117-120
4.15 - 4.16 Income Levels . . 124
4.17 - 4.18 Distribution of Ethnic
Groups/Races .. 129-130
4.19 - 4.20 Duration Lived in Nairobi 132
4.21 Number of Moves 135
4.22 Rent Levels for First Homes 142
4.23 Reasons for First Move 145
4.24 Rent Levels for Second Homes 153
.25 Reasons for Second Moves 157
(XV)
PageTable 4.26 Incidences of Third moves .. 162
Table 4.27 Rents in Third houses .. .. ]63
Table 4.28 Reasons for Third moves .. .. 164
Tables 4.30 - 4.32 Priority Reasons for houses
currently occupied ........... 168-169
Table 4.33 Number of households using
private cars ................... 179
Tables 4.34 - 4.36 Income related moving .. .. 183
Table 4.37 Percentage of households that
would not m o v e ................... 188
Table 4.38 Other circumstances for
moving .. .. .. .. .. 190
Definition of Terms
Family : In this study, family refers to the
composition of parent/s and children, it excludes other
relatives and domestic workers even though they may share the same housing Unit.
Flat : A self contained dwelling unit joined toothers within a single structure.
Household : The term household has several
definitions. The house dwelling concept defines house
hold as the number of persons occupying one housing unit.
The Central Bureau of statistics uses the term household
to refer to a person or group of persons generally bound
by ties of kinship who normaslly reside together under a
single roof or several roofs within a single compound and
who share a community of life in that they are snswerable to some head and have a common source of food. In this
study, the term household is to refer to a person or group
of persons related or not, living in the same housing unit.
Housing Allocation Vs Housing Location : The
major difference between the two terms is that while
allocation is market related, location is geographical.
The operations of the housing market differentiate house
holds into separate housing markets, then a residential
structure evolves whereby there is spatial segregation
of the various types of dwellings and neighbourhoods, it is, therefore, taken that each household, due to its
(xvii)
socio-economic characteristics has been allocated a
residential market from which it chooses where to locate.
Hence while allocation does not involve the participation
of the household, location is a choice made by each house
hold, that is, where to live vis a vis place of work,
schools, health and recreational facilities etc. All the
socio-economic characteristics will come into play in
making of the decision of where to live.
Maisonnette : A semi - detached or terraced
self-contained dwelling unit with more than one floor.
Neighbourhood : This is a spatial unit which
incorporates socio-cultural, educational, health, recr
eational and commercial requirements of the people. The
physical standards of a neighbourhood refects the particular needs of these requirements of the community.
Non-economic : This term is interchangeable with
social characteristics and objectives of individuals and
refers to those characteristics which are not income or
financial related. Hence non-economic factors would
include family size and composition, education and
attitudes. The exclude incomes, prices and monetary
values.
Residential Mobility : Mobility is the change of
movement in response to a new stimulus or situation. It
(xviii)
involves change, new experience and stimulation. Resi
dential mobility is, therefore, the fluidity of society
in both geographical and social terms whithin residential areas.
Room : An enclosed area, either detached or
semi detached used to serve all purposes of a single
residential unit, i.e. the same room is being used as
living space, dining space, cooking space, had space etc.
with the toilet and bathroom being either part of the space or outside i.e. detached.
Socio-economic : The social and/or economic
characteristics and objectives of individuals. Although
occupation, education and income are often used inter
changeably as measures of socio-economic status, other indicators of socio-economic status one household size
and composition, family situation, spending priorities
and attitudes.
CHAPTER ONE
Problem Identification
Conventional land economic theories amongst others,
assert that the distance from the Central Business District
(CBD) of an urban area is one of the most important factors
in any explanation of the residential location patterns of
households. This implies amongst other implications that
urban households will locate themselves taking into account
the distance from the CBD. There is therefore, theoretically,
a relationship between the place one stays in and the distance to the CBD.
In Nairobi in the recent past, it has been the norm
for residential densities to increase as the city centre is
approached. This has been the result of residential densities increasing as the position of greatest accessibility is approached.
However, Nairobi is currently experiencing easing of
residential densities from near the Central Business District
(CBD) to the peri-urban areas. This could mean that either
accessibility has ceased to be the most important factor in
making decisions with respect to residential location, or
with increased mobility of families, proximity to CBD is no
longer of utmost importance in residential location decisions.
In other words, although the natural tendency has hitherto
been for the employed people to minimise their movement,
this has partially been offset by opposing forces affecting
2
the choice of residential location. It is a contention of
this study that the rapid movement from residential
locations close to the CBD which provides employment places,
shelter, shopping, medical and educational facilities cannot
wholly be attributed to advances in transportation in view
of the fact that there has been relatively slow advances in
the structures of transportation technology. It is therefore,
a concern of this study to analyse residential mobility
through the study of residential histories with a view to
determining what aspects of residential preferences are
important to different types of households.
Although Kenya faces severe difficulties in trying
to fulfill social and economic aspects of shelter, these
difficulties are made even more severe by improper planning
whereby houses have been taken over by households other than those for whom they were earmarked. This study intends to
examine whether there are any housing preferences or aspects
that are peculiar to certain household types. This way these
aspects can in so far as is practical be incorporated or
considered while planning housing units for these household
groups.
Hypothesis
It is hypothesized in this study that other factors
in the social and economic dimension than distance to work
and power to afford housing play an important role in the
choice of residential area in Nairobi.
3
Study Objectives
The main objective of this study is to identify the
factors that influence residential location decisions in
households of different socio-economic status in Nairobi.
The study therefore attempts to evaluate all the factors
that households consider in their housing choices as well
as the importance accorded to each of these factors by every
household studied. By analysing basic models of land use
patterns within urban areas, the study aims to establish
whether there exists any similarities between these theories and Nairobi's residential patterns.
The Study Area
Nairobi the capital of Kenya lies at the border
between two different types of ecological regions in Central
Kenya. To the south stretch the lowly populated plains of
the Athi and Kapiti and to the north the highly populated
highlands of Kenya. Both are bounded to the west by the
Rift Valley. It lies along the main Kenya highway and
railway from Mombasa to Kisumu which proceeds westwards to
serve Uganda and other countries.
Nairobi has experienced a more rapid growth both in
population and economic terms than any other urban area in
Kenya since it was founded by the Imperial British East
African Company (IBEA) in 1895. In 1901 the population was
4
8,000 and by 1948, it was 118,976. In 1962 the population
was 343,500 and by 1979, it has risen to 827,800. In 1988,
population in Nairobi was estimated to be 1,230,200*.
Nairobi is, therefore, the largest city in the
country and takes the largest share in most of the economic
sectors. About 40% of the country's modern sector jobs and245% of incomes from this sector are in Nairobi .
Owing to the size and high rate of population growth,
Nairobi experiences the most acute magnitude of the urban
housing problem in Kenya. In addition, Nairobi has the
largest squatter and slum settlements in urban Kenya with330% of the population living in substandard housing . All
these factors contributed in making Nairobi an ideal study
area.
Organisation of Study
The first section of this study comprises the
introductory chapter which sets out the problem statement,
study objectives, the study hypothesis, the scope,
significance and methodology of the study. The second section consists of chapters two and three. Chapter two
reviews the three basic models that were proposed by economists and geographers as theories of land use patterns
within urban area. These theories are, the concentric zone
theory developed by E. W. Burgess in the 1920's, the radial
5
sector theory developed by H. Hoyt in the 1930's and thirdly, the multiple nuclei theory developed by C.D. Harris and E.C. Ullman in the 1940's.
This study attempts to establish, later, whether any
Nairobi's residential patterns conform to these theories.
This chapter also briefly reviews sociological aspects
influencing residential patterns in urban areas. It also
briefly reviews the historical development of Nairobi's
residential pattern which may or not be influencing the current residential location trends.
Chapter 3 of the study analyses the urban housing
market. In addition, it contains a brief analysis of the
housing situation in Nairobi. Chapter A constitutes the core of the study in which data obtained from the field survey is
analysed and finally Chapter 5 deals with conclusions and recomendations.
Scope of Study
This paper reports data on housing and housing
preferences gathered in a survey of households living in
Lavington, Kilimani, Parklands, Eastleigh, Buruburu, Umoja,
Otiende, Kibera, Plainsview, Riruta Satellite and Kawangware
residential areas in Nairobi. First, background on the houses
and tenure types are given. Secondly, sociological and
economic characteristic of respondent households is summarised.
6
Their previous and present houses are analysed in terms of
the aim of establishing what factors are important in housing
location and preference decisions with respect to households
of different socio-economic status. Besides the data analysis,
this study has attempted an analysis of land use patterns
within urban areas with a view to establish any relationship
that might exist between these theories and the current
Nairobi's residential pattern. The study also reviews the
urban housing market. In the final chapter, the study draws its conclusions and recommendations.
Research Methodology
The study began by collection of secondary data.
This entailed reviewing literature related to residential
location issues. The researcher began by analysing literature
on historical development of residential patterns in Nairobi
as well as having an insight at the urban housing market.
By so doing, the researcher hoped to find from the said
literature the relationship that might exist between
historical developments of residential patterns in Nairobi
and the current residential location patterns, also the contribution of the urban housing market to the current
residential location pattern.
Literature related to conventional theories of
residential location such as those by Burgess, Hoyt and
others were reviewed, by so doing the researcher hoped to
7
detect any similarities or otherwise that might exist between
these conventional theories and the actual pattern that exists in the study area. • The sources of this secondary data included
University libraries, public libraries, journals, magazines
and any other sources from which relevant data could be
obtained.
The second part involved collection of primary data
from the case studies. The researcher utilised questionnaires
which were administered to residents of selected residential
areas. The purpose of administering questionnaires was to
speed up data collection because in cases where the respondent
would be absent, the questionnaire would be left and collected
later when the respondent would have completed it. Some of
the respondents were also uncooperative and would choose to
fill in the questionnaires at their own time instead of being
interviewed by the researcher. However, where the respondent
was not literate enough to fill in the questionnaire by him/
her self, the researcher would interview them and fill in the
answers. This was found more convenient than having to write
down all the answers separately. Questionnaires made analysis
of the data easier. The selected residential areas cover
households of diverse social and economic characteristics.
The data obtained has been presented in form of tables and
written text.
8
Sampling
Areas sampling was carried out by using administrative/ political boundary maps as sampling frames. The City of
Nairobi was divided into zones out of which sub-samples
(estates) were taken. The sub-samples were defined and
grouped into strata representing the different neighbourhoods of each zone. These zones were:-
1. Upper Nairobi Zone:
This zone included such estates as Upper Hill,
Kileleshwa, Kilimani, Lavington, Bernhard, Thompson, Loresho, and Woodley Estates.
2. Parklands Zone:
This includes Parklands, Muthaiga and Westlands areas.
Both these zones cover an area that is characterised
by low densities and are prestigious suburbs. They have
minimum plot sizes ranging from half acre to one acre and ground coverage of 33-j%.
3. Eastleigh/Pangani Zone:
This includes estates such as Kariokor, Ziwani,
Starehe, Pumwani, Bondeni and Bahati (Heshima). These are
mainly low income high density areas close to the city centre.
They have a minimum plot size ranging between of an acre to5
9
1 of an acre and ground coverage ranges between 331 to 50%.10 3
4. Eastleigh Zone:
Includes Buruburu, Bahati, Jericho, Kimathi, Makadara,
Umoja, Makongeni, Kaloleni and Shauri Moyo estates. These are
low to middle income housing estates covering high density
areas. Minimum plot size is _1 of an acre and ground20
coverage of 50%.
5. Nairobi South Zone:
Includes Southlands, Rubia, Ngei, Otiende, Maasai,
Jambo, Kibera, Ngumo, Highview, Magiwa estates and the Karen
and Langata areas.
This zone has a cross-section of households ranging
from the very low income households of the densely populated
Kibera slum area to the middle income but high density estates
i.e. Magiwa, Ngumo etc. and through to the high income low
density area of Karen-Langata which has minimum plot size of
five (5) acres compared to the 1̂ of an acre of the other10
areas.
6. Dagoretti Zone:
This zone covers the 'semi-rural' areas of the
Dagoretti Constitutency which includes such areas as
Dagoretti Corner, Riruta Satellite, Waithaka, Kawangware
10
and Mutu-ini areas that border Kiambu District. The area has
a mixture of rural and urban developments and has high to medium densities.
The aim of the field study was to collect information
from a sample representative of the diverse socio-economic characteristics of Nairobi residents. A pilot study was
therefore conducted to obtain information on the kind of
population to be studied, reactions to questions and expected
answers. This was done by way of sending out questionnaires and also personal interviews.
The aim of the pilot survey was that while the entire
population was so large and dispersed ruling out complete
coverage due to shortage of both time and money, it was also
crucial that the different strata in the population, that is, varied family sizes, ages, income, education etc. were
adequately represented in the sample. Stratified random
sampling was employed and the selection with strata was made randomly.
For each of the zones, pieces of paper containing
names of each and every estate making up the zone were folded
and put in a basket, after shaking them up, two pieces of
paper each bearing the name of an estate were picked at
random. This exercise, was repeated for each of the six
zones such that at the end of the exercise, the researcher
was left with one or two estates from each zone depending on
11
the size of the zone. These estates were:
Upper Nairobi Zone: Lavington and Kilimani estates
Parklands Zone: Lower Parklands and Upper Parklands
Eastleigh/Pangani Zone: Eastleigh and Pangani
Eastlands Zone: Buruburu and Umoja Estates
Langata Zone: Plainsview, Kibera and Otiende Estates
Dagoretti Zone: Riruta Satellite and Kawangware.
Having determined the case studies, random sampling
method was again utilised to pick the households to be
studied, where plot numbers were available like Parklands,
Westlands, Lavington and Kilimani, for each one of these
estates, all plot numbers were again written on small pieces
of paper, folded, put in a basket and shaken after which 20
to 30 plot numbers were picked depending on the size of the
study area.
In estates where numbering or lettering is used,
e.g. Buruburu, Umoja, Mariakani, Plainsview and Otiende
Estates, the same sampling procedure was utilized but using
the house numbers to obtain households to be studied. Sample
size of 20 were picked for areas that had either low densities or where the study area though having high density was small.
Sample sizes of 25 - 30 were picked for study areas that were
either large in size or those which though small had high
densities.
12
Through study of previous surveys dealing with the same population, it was established that there was a
relationship between areas lived, education levels, incomes
and family sizes such that families with higher education
levels lived in better neighbourhoods, had higher incomes
and had smaller family sizes. Households living in the same
estates were shown to have relatively smaller levels of
variability compared to inter-estates households. This was
established through the pilot survey. This small degree of
variability made it easier to ensure adequate representation
of an estate by a small sample which had to be kept small
due to time and resources. Indeed, the study showed that
response to questions put to households of similar socioeconomic status within the same estate was similar. The
pilot survey made it possible to ascertain the kind of families/households in each area. This was also ascertained
through perusal of previous studies carried out in different
residential areas in Nairobi. These two factors made it
possible to ensure adequate representation of the sample to
the cross-section of Nairobi residents because it was possible
to pick estates of the entire socio-economic cross-section.
Geographical factors were not considered in the
study. While the size of Nairobi is not large enough to
occasion major geographical differences in the residential
areas, it was assumed that any geographical factor that may
have influenced residential location would be given when
13
respondents gave reasons regarding mobility. In addition
the major geographical factors, that is, soil types,
topography and climate are assimilated in1 allocation. Areas
with red coffee soils which is better than black cotton soils
have higher land values hence housing development is carried
out for higher income households. The areas with better
topography and are cooler also experience development of
expensive neighbourhoods for high income households. The
pilot survey also showed that households hardly ever
considered geographical factors in residential location.
This is possibly due to the above mentioned factors which
make geographic factors issues of allocation.
Constraints
There were constraints that were encountered in
the research design, sampling and operations in the field. These were:-
i) Although some factors for stratification were
chosen because they seemed relevant to most questions, it
had to be decided which questions to give priority and
select stratification factors to suit them. This was to
some minor extent manipulation of the samples.
14
ii) The study was not confined to a single purpose.
It sought information on several variables and a sample that
may be big enough, for one variable could have been inadequate
for another. This like in the above case necessitated prioritisation.
iii) Income related questions were touchy,
respondents feared that knowledge of their income may lead
to income tax problems. This constraint was reasonably but
not absolutely overcome by assuring respondents that the
information given would neither appear separately but would
be grouped with others nor was there any possibility of the
information being divulged to Income Tax Department.
On the whole respondents had to be assured that the
information they gave would be kept secret and would only be
used for a thesis and that their names would not appear in the thesis.
iv) Some respondents of lower socio-economic
characteristics attempted to give the impression that they
were better off than the interviewer thought. They therefore
gave some incorrect answers especially regarding their
incomes and education levels. The interviewer had at times
to make intelligent guesses based on observations from the
household.
15
There were also communication problems with these
households and sometimes the questions had to be translated
into Kiwahili which may have slightly altered the meaning,
hence incorrect responses.
v) Most of the interviewing had to be conducted
personally to minimize the rate of non-response and also
to solicit answers for 'touchy' questions. This was both
expensive and time consuming.
FOOTNOTES
1. Republic of Kenya, "Human Settlement in Kenya"; A Strategy for Urban and Rural Development, 1978 Ed. (Nairobi: Physical Planning Dept., Ministry of Lands and Settlement, 1978), P. 26.
2. Ministry of Finance and Planning, Economics Survey, 1984, Nairobi Government Printer, 1984, P. 56. 3
3. "Nairobi Urban Study Group": NairobiMetropolitan Growth Strategy, Nairobi, City Council of Nairobi, Vol. PN 5.33 and 5.38.
CHAPTER TWO
THEORIES OF RESIDENTIAL LOCATION
Introduction
In their attempts to study the location of various
activities within urban areas, economists and geographers
have come up with three basic models describing the theory
of land use pattern within urban areas. Namely, these
theories are: the Concentric Zone Theory developed by
E. W. Burgess in the early 1920's; the Radial Sector Theory
developed by H. Hoyt in the 1930's; and the Multiple Nuclei
Theory developed by C.D. Harris and E.C. Ullman in the 1940's.
All these theories have been based on the assumption that
activities tend to concentrate in areas of greatest accessibility.
This chapter reviews these theories with the objective
of establishing, at a later stage, whether or not there is
any relationship between the mode of residential patterns in
Nairobi and these theories, i.e. establishing whether
Nairobi's residential patterns conform to these theories.
In addition the Chapter looks at sociological aspects
influencing residential patterns in urban areas.
The second part of this Chapter reviews the historical
development of Nairobi's residential pattern with the aim of
establishing to what extent the city's historical development
may have or still is influencing the current residential
location trends.
17
Burgess and the Concentric Zone Theory
The Concentric Zone Theory is one of the first of
the models of residential patterns. It was formulated in the
early 1920's by E. W. Bugess, a Chicago sociologist. Burgess
was interested with the great difference between various
neighbourhoods of the city and one of the earliest goals was
to try and find a pattern to this patchwork of differences.
He used mapping methods which allowed identification of the
city's natural areas and from this Burgess produced his
famous inductive conceptualisation of the city as a series of
concentric zones. According to Burgess, a city can be divided
into five main districts that follow concentric zones or rings
surrounding the city. This is based on the idea that similar
functionally related activities will locate at the same
distance from the centre of the city; that is, the Central
Business District (CBD).
Land uses from the CBD are sorted out in order of
their relative ability to benefit and to pay for proximity
to the centre. Each zone would be of relatively homogeneous
land use and as physical growth proceeds outwards from the
centre, then areas occupied at the same time will have similar
character.
From an economic point of view, the regularity of
a concentric zone would only result if sites at a given
distance from the centre irrespective of direction were
18
ONCENTRIC ZONES MODEL ( E . w . b u r g e s s ) .
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TRANSITION ZONE '
LOW INCOME HOUSING ZONE
HIGH INCOME RESIDENCES
THE COMMUTER ZONE
S O U R C E : W . L E A H & B . G O O O A L : A S P E C T S OF LAND E C O N O M I C S P g - 1 9 A .
19
equally accessible to that centre. Differences in physical
features, transport facilities etc. would destroy the
symetry of the ideal pattern. The zones were introduced
with the statement that the typical process of the expansion
of the city can best be illustrated, perhaps, by a series of
concentric circles...... an ideal construction of the tendency
of any town or city to expand radially from its Central Business District*.
Burgess identified the zones as:
Zone 1: The Central Business District (CBD)
The heart of this district is the downtown retail
district with department stores, smart shops, office
buildings, clubs, banks, hotels, theatres, museum, and its
headquarters of economic, social, civic and political life.
Encircling this area of work and play is the less well-known
wholesale business district with its market warehouses and
storage buildings. The CBD is found in the centre of the
city and surrounds an area where the town initially started
growing. In theory, it must be an area that is easily
accessible from all directions within a region so that
economic activities located in that area have to compete for
the location in the area to maximise their profits, hence
the intensive use of the region.
20
Zone 2: The Zone of Transition.
This is the area that is occupied by the transport terminals, for example, railway stations, bus stations,
parking facilities for trucks etc. it is also an area of
residential deterioration caused by encroaching of business
and industry from Zone 1. It forms a factory district for
its inner belt and an outer ring of retrogressing neighbourhoods .
Zone 3: Zone of Low Income Housing.
This is normally recognised by highrise blocks of
flats with low rents but a high rate of return per hectare
because of intensive development. Within the locality there
may be light industrial activities such as warehouses, simple
assembly and processing firms.
Zone A : Zone of High Income Residents.In this area are normally found single family
dwellings occupying individual plots that can afford the
amenity of private grounds for each residential unit. The
area of plot for each individual unit increases the further
away one moves from inner the city. This area gradually
gives way to the outer suburbs of the city with densities
of residential development intermixed with agricultural
activities e.g. market gardening.
21
Zone 5: Commuter Zone.
In many urban areas, this forms detached residential
areas and satelite commercial centres. Most of the residents
work in the big city and commute there daily using the
transport system between the city and these suburbs.
These five zones have been interpreted as indicating
a continual increase of socio-economic status away from the city centre.
Although the zonal model was presented as one of
expansion from the city centre, the original formulation
gave little indication on how this proceeded, or on why the
more wealthy residents chose to live at considerable distances from the city centre.
Burgess was criticised as having ignored the factor
of inertia. Immobility is considerable within cities, for
buildings, streets, railways and occasionally even some
cultural groups are not easily transferred to other locations.
Accessibility surfaces also change over time, and not
uniformly, so that developing structural patterns are
imposed upon a generally conservative existing mosaic. The
degree to which a city re-orders itself to the new influences
depends on the mobility of people and capital, the readiness
with which people will move and write off earlier capital
investments, and the importance to them of marginal benefits2m for example, accessibility .
22
This was the second model of residential patterns
and was developed by Homer Hoyt in 1939. When referring
to residential uses, Hoyt paid attention to indigeneous
characteristics of home and neighbourhood. The mechanism
he suggested is now generally known as filtering, by which
the higher income groups periodically demand new housing
and their former homes are bought by lower income groups,
for whom they represent an improvement down the social
standard. Thus homes slowly filter down the social scale. . . . 3and individuals filter up the housing scale .
The main reason suggested for the initiation of
filtering was deterioration of the housing stock of an area.
Neighbourhood desirability is correlated with age
because according to Hoyt "houses with increasing age arei
faced with higher repair bills. This steady process of
deterioration is hastened by obsolescence: a new and more
modern type of structure relegates these structures to the
second rank. The older residents do not fight so streneously
to keep out inharmonious forces. A lower income class
succeeds the original occupants. Owner occupancy declines
as the first owners sell out or move away or loose their
homes by foreclosure. There is often a sudden drop in value
due to sharp transition in the character of the neighbour
hood
23
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTHIGH INCOME LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREA
MEDIUM INCOME RESIDENTIAL AREALOW INCOME HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AREAMANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSING ZONE
RADIAL SECTOR MODEL ( HOMER HC YT ) .
S O U R C E : J A M E S J O H H S O H : U R B A N G E O G R A P H Y ( 1 9 72 ) P j . 1 7 3 .
24
According to the sector theory, the pattern of
residential location is not completely explained by the
filtering down process. The higher income groups occupy
new houses in the best residential land and in the high
rent sector. The lesser-income groups also can afford new
housing and therefore will locate in the adjacent sectors.
Hoyt also specifies the factors which seemed to have governed the direction and pattern of growth of the high
rent areas in the cities he studied. These factors are
variously topographical, sociological, historical, etc.
Thus the high rent areas are said to grow towards an
existing built-up areas, towards the homes of the community
leaders, towards high ground, along lake fronts or towards open country^.
Hoyt's radial sector theory can therefore, be
divided into two, that is, the axial development theory and
the sector theory. With respect to axial development theory,
the process of urban growth is one of radial expansion from
the centre whereby each inner zone extends its area by
invading the adjoining zone towards the periphery of the
urban area. The theory represents a natural progression of
thoughts from the concentric zone theory because accessibility
to a single focal point is still a basic premise. However,
accessibility is considered in terms of time as well as
physical distance and it is accepted that transport facilities
25
in any urban areas are limited, therefore, movement will be
concentrated along particular routes and the form of urban
expansion will be controlled by available transport
facilities. There is an extension of each type of land use
along the main transport routes especially the fastest ones,
and this would result in star shaped pattern for the built
up urban area, the number of arms to the star depending on
the number of main routes to the town. This theory leads to an irregular land use pattern.
The second subdivision, that is, the sector theory
suggest that growth along a particular axis of transport
usually takes the form of similar types of land use.
The Trade-Off Theory of Residential LocationWhen economists became interested in the location
of activities within the city during the late 1950s, the
problem of residential location was approached by not
regarding the location of a household as being determined
by the availability of housing but the household was assumed
to find its optimal location relative to the centre of the
city by trading off travel costs, which increase with
distance from the centre and locating at the point at which
total costs are minimised. This theory has been described
as a trade-off theory, but it has also been called the
least cost theory of residential location^.
26
Evans writes that the basic of the trade off theory
is that the householder attempts to minimise the cost of his
location by trading off rents against travelling costs and
that the primary factor in determining his location is the
total rent plus travelling costs which he has to pay at any
point. These costs vary with distance from the place of
work. When all the households in the city attempt to
minimise costs in this way the result is a predictable
pattern of location of the different types of households.
Those for whom proximity to the place of work is the most
valuable locating near it. Those for whom proximity to the
place of work is least valuable location on the periphery
of the city. For this pattern to result, it is however,
necessary that a substantial difference exists between the. 7rents or travelling costs .
Harris and Ullman's Multiple Nuclei Theory
The multiple nuclei hypothesis is built around the
observation that frequently there are a series of nuclei in
the patterning of the urban land uses rather than the single
central core used in the other two theories. In expanding
on this concept in an essay on the nature of cities, Harris
and Ullman (1945) observed that sometimes these were distinct
centres in the origins of metropolitan area, persisting as
centres as growth has filled in the areas between them, and
27
MULTIPLE NUCLEI MODEL ( c . Ha r r is & e . u l l m a n ) .
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
WHOLESALE AND LIGHT INDUSTRY
LOW INCOME HOUSING
MIDDLE INCOME HOUSING
UPPER INCOME HOUSING HEAVY INDUSTRY
OUTLYING BUSINESS AREAS
RESIDENTIAL SUBURB INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
COMMUTER ZONE
S O U R C E : J A C K H A R V E Y : U R B A J i L A U D E C O N O M I C S P g . 2 3 2 .
28
sometimes they have emerged as new centres as urbanisationphas proceeded .
Harris and Ullman note that the number and function
of each nucleus vary from one metropolitan to another. The
Central Business District (CBD) clearly serves as one nucleus.
Others may appear in the form of industrial or wholeselling
centres where specialised economic activities of similar or complementing character have gravitated together. Still
others may emerge in the guide of a major outlying retail
centre or a university centre. Finally the suburban centre
and the more distant satellite community for commuters are
mentioned as nuclei to be recognised in this conception of the urban land use configuration.
According to Chapin (1965), there are four factors
that tend to account for the emergence of separate nuclei in
urban land use patterns. He identifies these factors as: the interdependence of activities and their need for close
physical proximity to one another; a natural clustering
tendency among certain types of activities which find it
mutually profitable to congregate together e.g. retail
centres, medical centres, etc; the appearance of centres
to accommodate activities that may have no particular
affinity for one another, but which are inimical to other
uses by virtue of the traffic they generate, the extensive
railroad or truck-loading facilities they require etc., and
29
finaly, there is the related factor of high rents or high
land costs which have the effect of attracting or repelling. . 9uses in the process of nucleation .
Other Determinants of Location
Chapin identifies another series of influences
affecting the location and arrangement of land use. These
are those with social origins. Socially rooted factors of
land use according to Chapin can be "explained in terms of
ecological processes with their physical context and
organisational processes with social structural context"^0.
The primary and broadest basic process identified
by urban ecologists is called aggregation. This has a
localised frame of reference involving the sequences of
change which occur within a particular locale. The most
important localised sub-processes of aggregation have been
identified as: concentration and dispersion of services andpopulations, centralisation and decentralisation; segregation
of populations into various distinctive areas; dominance and
the gradient of receeding dominance in the successively more
peripheral sub-areas of the community and; invasion of areas
by groups, giving rise to succession of one group by another
30
Dominance, Gradient and Segregation
These three ecological processes offer a means of
understanding the social aspects of the patterning of the city. 'Dominance' is used in the sense of one area in the
city bearing a controlling social or economic position in
relation to other areas. 'Gradient' is a term the sociologist
has developed to indicate the receding degrees of dominance
from some selected dominant centre to the more distant
locations relative to that centre. 'Segregation' is a
related process of clustering, it is a selection process
by which homogeneous units become grouped together to form
clusters. Taken as a series, the ecologist employs these
three processes to describe the way in which natural social areas develop.
These processes were first identified in a systematic
fashion as part of the concentric zone theory. Thus the
Central Business District (CBD) is one centre of dominance,
and the gradient of its influence over other business centres
or even over other use areas can be described in each
successive concentric zone.
The sector theory explaining the distribution of
high-value residential areas is also adaptable to describing
these processes. For example such processes are seen in the
presumed controlling position of high-value areas in the
downward gradients noted in adjoining sectors, and in the
31
clustering of uses like character and intensity of development
within certain segments of the pattern.
The multiple nuclei concept is particularly graphic
for describing dominance and subdominance within the urban
centre and is adaptable to explain each of the other related processes.
Dominance is most readily illustrated in studies of
residential areas. Assuming some physical basis for
delineating residential neighbourhoods in a metropolitan area,
they can be ordered into a system of dominant or subdominant
neighbourhoods, positioned according to prestige factors especially land values and rental levels. Prestige is a
socially rooted determinant of dominance.
Gradient is directly related to the concept of
dominance. The degree of increasing or decreasing intensity
in the phenomenon being observed establishes the gradient or
gradation from full dominance to total subdominance. The
gradient extends from a point of greatest intensity to areas
of low intensity. Gradient is a concept frequently used to
represent 'decay' in population density. land values or
other phenomena exhibiting systematic gradiations in spatial
patterns.
32
The segregating process results in the identification
of distinct prestige areas, slum areas, areas of high
incidence of disease etc. The extent and rapidity of the
sorting going on is a function of attitudes, decisions and
actions. They involve matters such as deed restrictions,
zoning, condition of housing market, family ties, location of place of work etc.
These diverse factors may produce segregation either12as a calculated result or as an unexpected result
Centralisation and Decentralisation
'Centralisation' usually refers to the congregation
of people and urban functions in a particular urban centre
or its functional use areas in the pursuit of certain economic,
cultural, or social satisfactions. 'Decentralisation'
generally refers to the breaking down of the urban centre
with the accompanying movement of people and urban functions
to fringe areas or to new satellite centres.
Viewed in terms of the social institutions of the
community such as business, religion, education, recreation
etc., centralisation involves the settlement of people and
the related development of places of work, education,
entertainment and worship in a more or less compact relation
ship in a single centre. Conversely, decentralisation
33
involves settlement patterns of poly-nulceated order with
the appearance of outlying centres of work, entertainment,
education, worship, etc. One involves migration of people
and economic activity into the central city and one involves13migration outward to fringe areas or nearby subcentres
Invasion and Succession
'Invasion' is the interpenetration of one population
group or use areas by another, the difference between the
new and old being economic, social, or cultural.
'Succession' occurs when the new population group
or use types finally displace the former occupants or uses
of the area.
Invasion of one population group by another is
usually a spatial manifestation of the change processes at
work in the social structure of the city. Population group
invasion takes place in residential areas when one income,
racial or ethnic group penetrates an area occupied by another,
usually, an upper-status social group gives way to a lower-
status social group. The processes of invasion and
succession tie directly into the concentric zone theory by
describing physical structure and change in the city. In
describing growth of the city in terms of concentric rings,
the theory anticipates the operation of these processes and
34
the 'filtering down process of residential occupancy, with
the invasion-succession processes being most in evidence14in the 'zone of transition'
Human Ecological Approach
This approach refers to the attempt by ecologists to
explain the distribution of land values and the location of
urban sub-areas based on sociology and human ecology.
In explaining urban structure from a human ecology
approach, it is asserted that firstly, land values determine
land uses and secondly that other factors are more influential
than land values themselves. Human ecologists argue that land values not only determine the type of land use but also
determine the type of building to be erected in an area. They
add that various uses establish the land prices by bidding
for the most advantageous sites.
The interest in residential location by human
ecologists stems from the social dimensions and issues
involved. The esentials of human ecologists residential
location theory was presented by Amos Hawley who suggested
that the reason for residential differentiation is to be
found in the rental value of residential land. Rental value
they argue, is a combination of land values, location of
other activities and the time and money costs of transporta
tion to urban activity centres. Hawley argues that .....
35
'Since households cannot compete successfully with the more
intensive land uses such as business and industry. They are
relegated to less accessible sites with lower rental values'^
He adds that residences on high value land are usually in
deteriorated condition due to the speculation with which
the land is held leading to occupation of such houses by low
income families. This theory accounts for the existence of
grey areas in proximity to the central city. This explanation
is partial in that because there are cases where profitability
does sustain investment in such low income housing areas, low
maintenance costs, low vacancy rates and low taxes are some
reasons for such profits. This explanation of urban
residential location depends on urban growth since growing
urban areas expand as new houses which cannot be built within
the existing city appear on the cheaper land of the periphery.
The Social Area Analysis Approach
This analysis was developed by sociologists in their
attempt to study the dimensions of urban society and the
consequent residential patterns. Their study involved
identification of the social areas of a city and integration
of the observed residential differentiation with a theory of
social change. To apply their theoretical construct of
societal structure to areal differentiation. Sociologists
Sherky and Bell selected social rank, family status e.g.
number of children, education level and ethnic status as
36
their indices. The scores of these indices from various
cities were used to form a two-dimensional social space
whose axes were the social rank and urbanisation dimensions.
It was found that the two dimensions were not independent.
In some cities, the proportion of single family dwelling
units was positively related to social rank and not
associated with urbanisation.
The criticism that has been levelled on this
analysis is that although it provides a fairly full
description of the main dimensions of spatial aspects of
social structure where it has been tested, it fails to give
a complete summary. It has also been accused of housing
measurement problems and inadequate representativeness of
the dimensions.
Factorial Ecologies
Factorial ecologies analyse the associations
between a whole battery of socio-economic, demographic and
other characteristics to find out what dimensions result.
In this approach, factor analysis is utilised on a correlation
matrix which represents the similarities between pairs of
areal distribution..... 'Thus, for example, a highpositive correlation indicates two very similar distributions
over a set of areas - where one value is big so is the other
and vice versa; a nil correlation indicates that where the
37
value for one variable is high the other is low'*6. Most of
the variables used in factorial ecologies fall under
categories of socio-economic status, life style and family
status and ethnic status. The main constraint in factorial
ecologies is that determination of the factors is arbitrary
and follows only mathematical rules.
Historical Development of Nairobi's
Residential Patterns
It was Sir Gildford Molesworth, one of the Engineers of theUganda railway who first decided that railway headquarters
should be located on the present Nairobi site. After the
route was inspected, he wrote;....... "Nairobi has, with
great judgement been selected as the site for the principal
workshops. It is approximately 5,500 feet above the level
of the sea which ensures a comparatively salubrious climate,
there is ample space for level ground for all sorts of
requirements, and excellent sites for the quarters of17officers and subordinates
Nairobi was, therefore, established with the railway
encampment as its nucleaus in 1899. In 1900, an arbitrary
circular boundary of 1% mile radius was declared. The town
consisted of the railway centre, the European business and
administrative centre, the Indian Bazaar, the railway quarters, the European residential suburb and the military
381 8barracks outside the town.
. 19According to Yahya (1969) , this establishment of
Nairobi as a railway headquaters was an improvement in
transport services in Nairobi and it caused movement to sub
urban areas. Another factor which contributed to this
movement was the availability of cheap land, Yahya adds that
the scramble for land in the suburbs may have also been
partly motivated by "Anglo-Saxon agrarian values and romantic
dreams of rustic innocence", he writes: ..... "It must be
remembered that this was a time of active anti-slum
campaigning and thinking in Britain. The Garden City
Movement was at its height. It was natural therefore that
Nairobi's development should be influenced by these values
and preference which include among other things, a detached
home with a large garden, spacious parks and public open
spaces, plenty of fresh air, and wide landscaped thorough
fares" .
Gattoni and Patel (1973) write that by 1906, the
population in Nairobi had reached 11,000 and that definite
land use zones were by then apparent. The appearance of
these land use zones was both by 'chance and choice' of the
inhabitants.
Because Nairobi's initial nucleation came about
because of the railway, the railway administration took the
responsibility for its European and Asian employees. Thus
39
all housing for its employees within the railway boundary
was to be funded by the Kenya-Uganda railway. With this in
mind, the plan divided housing within the railway boundary
into two residential areas. According to Emig and Ismail21(1980) , the two residential areas within the railway
boundary was for:-
a) Railways senior officers who were all Europeans,and
b) Railway junior officers or better known as
subordinates who were also nearly all
Europeans.
Yahya notes that Nairobi's residential areas
developed in a 'haphazard and unplanned' manner but with
signs of nodation or concentration around specific suburban
growth points. Growth, he adds, "did not take place in
concentric circles uniformly around the town, rather it was
a process of nucleation along specific sectors or corridors,
the nodes tending to develop more or less haphazardly within 22these sectors.
In the development of residential areas for the
railway employees, the area for senior officers was located
to the west of the railway line and it is known as the 'hill'
area. It is one of the most fertile areas of Nairobi with
rich red soil in a hilly well drained area. The area was to
40
be laid out with bungalows for the senior officers and there
was availability of unlimited space to the west of this area
in case expansion was necessary at a later stage. Here, in
the most attractive surroundings of the region, the senior
officers and their families would be away from the noise and• • ? ̂ inconveniences of the railway yard.
The area of subordinates was located close to the railway line on a partly flat area close to the hill area.
Drainage was not a big problem as the area lying to the
eastern side was lower. The area was engulfed to the south
east northwest by the railway line and by station road (now
Moi Avenue) to the north-east. The houses were to be placed
close to each other in rows running parallel to the railway
line to the south-east. The area for European and Asian
traders was an extension of the subordinates' area, but was
much smaller and was located to the north of the station
yard separated from the subordinates residential area by station road and separated from the station yard by the
railway line. Here the traders have to build their own
housing which was to be mixed, with their commercial enter
prise. The area bordering station road and which had about
the same soil characteristics as the subordinates' area had,lwas expected to be used by the few European traders. The
area at the back and close to the Nairobi River was to be24used by the Asian traders
41
Gattoni and Patel (1973) note that by 1919, Nairobi became a Municipality with a corporation and the initial
circular boundary was changed to include some of the
residential estates like Parklands. The first low income
housing schemes were started in Eastlands during this• ^25 period
In the early 1920s, there was a plan to make
Nairobi a settler capital. This was a plan to make Nairobi
a town for Europeans and Asians through the use of zoning.
In 1926 the European population made up less than
10 per cent of the total population of approximately 30,000
and occupied 2,700 acres of 42 per cent of the total area of
Nairobi for residential purposes. This was some of the best2 6area available in the region of Nairobi . The plan for a
settler capital suggested the opening up of more areas for
European residential occupation in the central and hill
areas with one acre as the minimum size of plots and an area to the west for a half acre minimum. This method of
alienating as much land as possible in the best area of the
region where there was already a concentration of Europeans
was a way of safeguarding the European residential area from
intruders and at the same time make it attractive for new
European settlers. The area around Parklands was laid out
as Asian area where the minimum size of a plot for one
dwelling was half an acre. This was a special area for
42
'better class Asians'
The lower part of Parklands and Pangani area were
laid out for middle and lower class Asians. Pumwani
location which was less than 5 per cent of the total area
of Nairobi was laid out to be occupied by about 18,000
Africans who were living in Nairobi around 1926. This was
equivalent to the size of Kilimani (for Europeans) which2 8was occupied by 200 Europeans
During the economic boom between 1927 and 1930,
there was some upsurge in some forms of social provision.
Nairobi Municipality built its first housing estate in
Quarry Road on the site of the Old Carrier Corps Camp.
'Kariokor' estate was built in 1929, mostly 'in the form of29brick dormitories' . In addition, the government itself
built the first phase of Starehe Estate for its own
employees.
Around 1939, Nairobi was recovering from the
economic slump of the early 1930s. One of the social
projects to take place following this economic recovery
was the demolition of the village of Pangani which had
grown up in the earliest years as 'Native Village' to the
east of the Fort Hall (Murang'a) Road and south of the
Mathare River became an early centre of nationalist
politics. Hake (1977) writes that this area was regarded
as 'an eyesore' and as occupying a site which should be
27
43
developed as part of the modern town. The land commission
in 1932-33 was told that Pangani was "an embarrassment to
Nairobi as it occupied land required for an Indian
residential area" . Africans were, therefore, moved and
Pangani was left to the Asians, many of the Africans moved
to Shauri Moyo and Pumwani while others moved to Thika, and
others built beyond Eastleigh on unoccupied common land.
Some moved into the nearby Mathare Valley and built there.
During the Second World War, Ziwani Estate was built at "a total cost approaching £100,000" and the government
extended Starehe to provide more housing for its ownemployees^1.
Despite all these projects, the African population
in Nairobi still suffered from housing shortage, thus in
1942, a committee was appointed to investigate the need for
African housing. The committee reported that housing was
needed for 24,000 people. Plans were then accordingly made
for further estates along the axis of what was then called
Donhoolm Road (now Jogoo Road) to be called Bahati, Gorofani
and Mbotela. Further areas were serviced and made available3 2for employers to erect staff housing . Makongeni Estate was
constructed by the Railway administration.
Subsequent policy evolution led to the passage of
the Housing Ordinance of 1943 which allowed for:-
44
1. The provision of accommodation for Africans by
Local Authorities in towns at sub-economic
rents, subsidized by local authorities.
2. Stricter enforcement of legal obligations of
employers to provide housing for their workers.
3. Africans to build in towns using temporary materials.
4. The establishment of semi-rural 'garden village'
communities outside the municipality where ".... an African worker and his wife could cultivatea small plot"^.
All African housing estates were located in Eastlands
between 1940 and 1960 and that their projected direction of
growth was eastward across the Athi Plains. In 1942, Kaloleni
was constructed by Municipal Council to the south-east of
Shauri Moyo. Starehe Phase Two was constructed by the
government during the same year, adding the houses to the
old government housing estate. The spatial layout of the
estates took the form of 'neighbourhood units'. The
density of residential development was to be highest in these 34areas
A master plan was prepared, for the first time, for
a 'colonial capital' in Africa by a team of South African
Planners in 1948. This plan perpetuated in effect,
45
Segregation in residential areas with European, Asian and
Official (for African zones) clearly defined. The 'Garden
City' appearance of the city was initiated during this35period . in the master plan residential areas were divided
into two areas, that is the Economic Residential Zones and the Official Housing Scheme Zones.
The economic residential zones were intended only for people who could afford to buy plots and built their own
houses or those who could afford to rent houses or apartments.
Zoning laws would legally control density, which in turn would
control the economic class which lived in a particular unit.
By official housing was meant those housing schemes, erected by the municipality, the government, the Kenya and
Uganda Railways and Harbours and any similar schemes which
may be erected in the future by the private enterprise of
commercial or industrial firms to accommodate their own workers.
The existing official housing areas were to the east of the commercial and industrial zones, and according
to the master plan, the new official housing zones were to carry on in that direction36.
The 1948 Master Plan did not alter the spatial
arrangement of the European areas. The Planning group found
46
that the area already geographically regionalised into thirty
'units' of varying areas. Each of these geographical areas
coincided with former residential estates and farms. Other
wise, the unit boundaries were determined by surface
topography and/or the road network. The size of each area
was dependent on the extent of the sub-division and of the
break up of the former homesteads. There was adequate open
spaces in each unit and the residential developments were
surrounded by ample open space. The master plan specified
that the development of these units would be regulated on
the basis of density of population per acre. The badly
drained areas and river valleys in the European residential
sector were to be reserved for the development of green belts37and public recreation grounds
The general position of the Asian residential area
remained unchanged during the two decades beginning 1940.
However, he points out that the master plan later in the
period when Asians gained exclusive occupation of Parklands
a new estate was opened for them in Nairobi South. The Asian
residential areas were to be planned using the 'neighbourhood
Unit' concept in which public space would be made available
in close proximity to areas of high residential densities.
With respect to African Housing the socio-economic
conditions in Nairobi following the second world war made the
Kenya colony government recognise the indispensability of a
47
stable African population in Nairobi. Since 1941, the
Municipal Council assumed the burden of housing all Africans
employed in Nairobi who were not housed by their employers.
The Council provided subsidized low rental housing. Around
1954, Makadara Estate was developed as an area where
individuals, landlords or employers could build at their own
expense along prescribed lines. In Bahati Estate plots were
reserved for the richer Africans to build their own houses.
Around 1957, Maringo, Jerusalem and Jericho Estates were
constructed in a bid to "provide a new layer of more expensive
housing for better-off workers and thus relieve over-crowding3 8in the older houses"
During 1964 and 1965, plots were prepared on the
site-and-service scheme of Kariobangi where 732 plots were
open by 1966; the Kariokor redevelopment was also implemented,
a sub-commitee was also appointed to look into the issues of
rebuilding Pumwani. The East African Posts and Tele
communications administration built some blocks of flats in
Ofafa during 1965 and the Ministry of Health and Housing
sponsored the first 33 houses of an aided self-help scheme39called the Otiende Estate, at Langata
In 1964, the United Nations Programme of Technical
Assistance appointed two experts; Dr. L. N. Bloomberg and
Dr. Charles Abrams to look into the housing problem. The
Bloomberg-Abrams study reported that a grave situation of
48
overcrowding in Nairobi - 52% of African house-households
were living with 3 or more persons per room, and 74% with 40two or more . As a result of the report, new estates
blossomed around the city - Uhuru, Kimathi, Harambee,
California, Jamhuri and Madaraka. Within five years, the
City Council had built 3,800 houses. By 1979, the National
Housing Corporation building operations were adding 300 to
350 houses or flats to the annual total. Later schemes
developed the city to the east of Umoja, Lumumba and Dandora„ . . 41Estates
NAIROBI: METROPOLITAN GROWTH STRATEGY
NAIROBI URBAN STUDY GROUP NCC 1973
At around 1967, Nairobi's growth and development was experiencing pressures arising from population increase.
These pressures were........ "an impending water shortage,
a road sytem increasingly unable to accommodate the growing
traffic, and spreading, deteriorating shanty areas as rising
numbers of low income migrants worsened the city's housing. . „ 42shortage"
As a result, the World Bank, among others commissioned
the Nairobi Urban Study in 1972, the report from this study
was to present a strategy for the development of Nairobi.
C I T Y OF N A I R O BMap No.1 Nairobi Boundary changes since
1900
VO
SCALE1 ? 3 t S 6 7 8 9 10 11
1— l-l-.l- 1-1-1— ikilometre*
Source: Kingoriah, G.K. Policy Impacts on UrbanT - m r l l l c o P n I f o r n c i n M a i r n l ^ i I T o n \ f A 1 P 0 0 — 1 0 R 0
C I T Y OF N A I R O B I
f P.O. , Urban Land & Residential Markets Analysis in Kenya (1989).
f
L E G E N D :F ^ - ^ I C I T Y B O U N D A R Y F T I CONSTITUENCY BOUHOARY
C O N S T I T U E N C Y
0 A GOR ET I E H B A K A S I K AL OL EN I KAMU KUNJ I L A N C ’ A T A MA T H A RESTAREHE WE S T L A NO S
Q ZZ]Q IZ ILZTZ1Q QIZ OQ _C3o m
icn01
51
The report according to its compliers, J.P. Mbogua the then
Town Clerk and Amos J. Ng'ang’a the then City Engineer is
distinguished from other plans in being comprehensive rather
than piecemeal, so that its proposals for the use of land,
for highways and public transport, for the city's central
areas, for housing programmes and the employment promotion
fit together in logical whole^. The report proposed four main demographic and economic considerations which must be
reflected in the future physical layout of metropolitan
Nairobi. In connection to residences, one of the considera
tions was "the need to relate closely the provision of44employment centres and low-cost housing development"
By so doing, it was hoped that the workers would be
able to commute between 'their jobs and their homes on foot
or by bicycle' hence saving on daily travel costs. The
savings would be not only to the employees but also to the
city which would reduce investment in roads and public
transport facilities.
According to the report, the number and distribution
of employment centres was to be a 'function of the number of
surrounding wage-earner households'. The grouping of
industrial activity was also to be used to 'free residential
areas from the adverse effect of indiscriminate mixing of
homes and factories'. By adverse effect was meant the hazards such as noise occasioned to residential neighbourhoods
52
by heavy traffic used by factories as well as cars and
public transport means used to ferry workers. This would
hopefully, make it possible to have quieter and more pleasant
home neighbourhoods. Added onto this would be the obvious
advantage of reduced expenditure on roads and infrastructure.
The study observed that there was ample space in and
around the then existing built-up area. It was assumed that
space would be developed. It suggested that the major areas
for development be Dagoretti, Karen-Langata, the eastern area
and the areas outside the north-eastern city boundary around
Ruiru. It was anticipated that there would be 'informal'
development of western shamba areas which could develop in
size and structure such as to be fairly independent of the
central city for many services. According to the report;
the size of each (area) was defined by the population required
to support certain services such as schools, clinics, shops
and places of entertainment. Three levels of population
were used: an area containing 5,000 people would be served
by a nursery and primary school, and a local shopping centre
and market, 25,000 people would support, in addition, one or
two secondary schools, a petrol station and a large shopping
centre; and an area with 250,000 people would contain a
further major commercial and administrative centre, an45institute of further education and a cinema
53
Recommended Growth Strategy for Residential Areas
a) Old City Area
Note: By old city is meant the central commercialarea and the adjacent industrial area.
This area is close to the city centre, is well
serviced with water and sewers and has access on all sides
to major roads. the study group suggested that the way in
which that land was being used:..... "should not be continuedthe centre of the built-up area because of the danger,
nuisance from noise, and because of the alternative urban uses to which such a prime site could be put"46.
b) Central Area
This area was defined as the land bounded by the railway, Uhuru Highway and Nairobi River. It was
projected that employment within this area would 'reach
around 190,000 by the end of century'. Such growth it was
reported, would cause congestion and reduce accessibility
to the city centre. To check this growth, it was suggested
that alternative service centres should be developed within
the different districts of the city. Consequently, functions such as higher education, shops and entertainment, commercial
offices and national and local government offices, it was suggested should be shifted to these service centres.
54
c) The Industrial Area
The same general principles (as for central
area) were to apply. That is, decentralisation to reduce employment population growth.
d) Areas North of the Old City
This part takes in coffee plantations and
the Spring Valley and Ridgeways Estates. It was anticipated
that this area would be developed for urban uses by the end
of the century. However, since the coffee area is job
bearing, it was suggested that they should be retained.
Since the area has steepsided valleys, it was foreseen that
construction of medium or high density residential areas
would be expensive, hence housing areas for low income
households would be difficult to create, it was therefore,
proposed that residential areas in that region be of low
densities for high income households.
e) Areas South of the Old City
This area includes Kibera, Wilson Airport and
land south of the industrial area. It was proposed that
this area be developed primarily for low and middle income
housing.
55
f) Karen-Langata
This is a mainly red-soil area with upper
income household development. It was proposed that it
remains an upper income households residential area. Those
parts with black cotton soils would be developed for other income groups at higher densities.
g) Dagoretti
This area was recommended for industrialdevelopment.
h) Eastern Sector
It was proposed that most of the housing in
this area be for low and middle income households. Industrial
development was also proposed. The north-eastern area
adjacent to Thika Road was recommended for housing "suitable
for the full range of incomes, from higher density housing4 7close to the central spine to lower density"
i) The Western Shamba Area
Development in this area, it was suggested,
should be concentrated into selected areas which can be
provided with urban services.
56
The study group proposed that for the intended urban
growth to be accommodated, land for residential and ancillary
purposes, assuming a gross residential density of 100 persons
per hectare, would be needed in the amount of 'around 26,300
hectares between the year 1974 and 2000'.
The group pointed out that: care should be taken
in the future not to allow low income housing developments
to become too concentrated, to have them interspersed with
higher income districts and to have some high income areas4 8located in the trade area of each secondary shopping centre
Conclusion
It is notable that there is a prominent feature
about Nairobi's residential structure, that is, differentia
tion on racial basis. Yahya (1969) notes that...."there are
distinct African, Asian and European residential areas which
tend to concentrate in the form of sectors radiating from49the centre of the city'1 50
50Yahya is of the opinion that Hoyt's (1939) theory
of city structures is the one most relevant to Nairobi's situation. This is however, only partial. The relevance is especially Hoyt's observations regarding:
57
a) The tendency for high-rent areas to progress
towards high ground which is free from the risk of floods
and to spread along lake, bay, river and ocean fronts, where
such water fronts are not used for industry. However, this
can be said to be more of a policy induced phenomenon and augments the tastes of the ruling classes.
In Nairobi, notes Yahya, many of the high income
areas are situated on ridges with a panoramic view towards river valleys.
b) The tendency for high rent residential
districts to grow towards free open country beyond the edges
and away from dead end sections which are limited by natural or artificial barriers to expansion.
In Nairobi, it is observable that high rent areas
such as Langata and Runda Estates are pushing frontiers
further and further out into the open countryside.
c) The growth of high-rent neighbourhoods tending
to continue in the same direction for a long period of time.
In Nairobi, observes Yahya, mixing of various gradations of
housing is prevented by administrative devices such as zoning
and building covenants.
d) The tendency for high-rent neighbourhoods of a
city not to skip about at random in the process of movement
58
but to follow definite paths in one or more sectors of the city.
In Nairobi, the preceeding chapter has established that high income residential development is usually
attracted to the already well established sectors of
equivalent status, mainly to the north and west of the city
FOOTNOTES
1. E. W. Burgess, op cit., Hoyt, The Structure and Growth of residential Neighbourhoods in American Cities Washington, D.C., Federal Housing Administration, 1939: C.D and Ullman, E.L. "The Structure of Cities", Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 242 (1945), P. 7-17.
2. R. J. Johnston, D.T. Herbert; Social Areas in Cities; John Wiley and Sons, London, 1976, P. (viii).
3. Ibid, P. (viii).
4. Homer Hoyt; The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighbourhoods in American Cities, Washington D.C., U.S., Federal Housing Administration, 1939, P. 121.
Location, MacMillan Press, London, 1973, P. 7.
6. Ibid, P. 7.7. Ibid, P. 8.
8. Chapin F. Stuart Jr., Urban Land Use Planning,University of Illinois Press, 1976, P. 19.
9. Ibid, P. 20.
10. Ibid, P. 21.11. Gordon E. Ericksen, Urban Behaviours,
York MacMillan Co. NY, 1954, P. 155.New
59
12. Chapin F. Stuart Jr. Urban Land Use Planning; University of Illinois Press, 1976, P. 25.
13. Ibid, P. 26.
14. Ibid, P. 27.
15. Micheal C. Romanos; Residential Spatial Structure, D.C., "Health and Company"; Massachusets, 1976. P. 43.
16. R. J. Johnston; Urban Residential Patterns,G. Bell and Sons Ltd., New York, 1971, P. 59.
17. Andrew Hake; African Metropolis, Nairobi Selp- Help City; sussex University Press, 1971, P. 22.
18. George Gattoni, Praful Patel; ResidentialLand Utilisation: Case Study Nairobi, Kenya; EducationResearch Programme, Massachusets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusets, ±973, P. 5.
19. Saley Saad Yahya; The Changing Pattern of Land Use and Land Values in Suburban Nairobi; University of Nairobi, 1969, P. 9.
20. George Gattoni, Praful Patel; Residential LandUtilisation: Case study Nairobi, Kenya, EducationResearch Programme, Massachusets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusets, 1973, P. 5.
21. Soren Emig, Zahir Ismail; Notes on Urban Planning of Nairobi; Royal Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, Copenhagen, 1980, P. 9.
22. Saley Saad Yahya; The Changing Pattern of Land Use and Land Values in Suburban Nairobi, University of Nairobi, 1969, P. 9.
23. Soren Emig, Zahir Ismail; Notes on Urban Planning of Nairobi, Royal Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, Copenhagen, 1980, P. 9.
24. Ibid, P. 9.25. George Gattoni and Praful Patel; Residential
Land Utilisation: Case Study Nairobi, Kenya, EducationResearch Programme, Massachusets, Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusets, 1973, P. 5.
26. Soren Emig, Zahir Ismail; Notes on Urban Planning of Nairobi, Royal Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, Copenhagen, 1980, P.9.
60
27. Ibid, P. 21.
28. Ibid, P. 21.
29. Andrew Hake; African Metropolis, Nairobi's Self-Help City; Sussex University Press, 1971, P.45.
30. Ibid, P. 49.
31. Ibid, P. 49.
32. Ibid, P. 49.33. Ibid, P. 50.
34. George K. King'oriah; Policy Impacts on Urban Land Use Patterns in Nairobi, Kenya 1899 - 1979; Ph.D .Thesis, Indiana State University, 1980, P. 284.
35. Ibid, P. 286.
36. George Gattoni, Praful Patel; Residential LandUtilisation: Case Study Nairobi, Kenya; Education ResearchProgramme; Massachusets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusets, 1973, P. 5.
37. Soren Emig, Zahir Ismail; Notes on Urban Planning of Nairobi; Royal Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, Copenhagen, 1980, P. 40.
38. George K. King'oriah; Policy Impacts on Urban Land Use Patterns in Nairobi, Kenya, 1899-1979; Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana State University, 1980, P. 273.
39. Ibid, P. 280.
40. Ibid, P. 283.
41. Andrew Hake, African Metropolis, Nairobi's Self-Help City, Sussex University Press, 1971, P. 64.
42. Ibid, P. 83.
43. Ibid, P. 84.
44 . Ibid, P. 85.
45. Urban Study Group; Nairobi Metropolis GrowthStrategy; Nairobi City Council, 1975, P. 33.
61
46. Ibid, P. 34.
47. Ibid, P. 45.
00'sr Ibid, P. 45
49. SaleyLand
Saad Yahya; The Chanqinq Pattern ofLand Use and Values in Suburban Nairobi, UniversityNairobi, 1969 , P- 20.
50. Ibid, P. 22
CHAPTER THREE
THE URBAN HOUSING MARKET
Introduction
Various definitions of a housing market have been
given. Rapkin, Winnik and Blank (1953) defined the urban
housing market analysis as ..... "a process that attempts
to identify and measure the forces that produce change in
the size and utilisation of the housing inventory and thus
influence the distribution of dwelling units among the
population"1.
Thus it is essentially an analysis of the forces
of supply and demand conditions in the housing market.
Broadly, supply is concerned with "how much of the product
will be available at different prices when costs and the
organisation of the industry are taken into account", and
demand with "how much of the product the public will buy,
given its income, tastes, and the price of the product2relating to the price of other goods" .
Housing demand has been taken to be a function of
such factors as; change in the level of population in urban
areas; change in the real income level of urban households;
change in prices of new and old housing, and availability
and cost of credit. Supply on the other hand is a function
of three main factors namely return to housing investment;
63
cost of input in the production of housing; and cost and
availability of credit. The interaction of supply and
demand will give the level of rent and prices that will be paid in free market conditions.
Besides the analysis of the urban housing market, this chapter also briefly analyses the housing situation
iii Nairobi and the reasons that have contributed to the acute housing shortage in the city.
THE URBAN HOUSING MARKET
Housing Defined
Housing may be viewed both as a process or product in the shelter delivery system. In its simplest sense, a
house may be defined as a separate and independent place of
abode comprising one or more rooms arranged for the use of
one or more persons living as a single house keeping unit including the cooking and sanitary facilities intended for
use essentially by that house keeping unit only.
Although housing has often been defined as a
'shelter', the question of housing is more complex in that
a house is more than shelter; there are other attributes that
are wound up with housing. They include privacy, relative
location, environmental amenities and investment.
64
The World Health Organization (WHO) gave the
definition of housing as.... "the residential environment,neighbourhood, a micro-district of the physical structure
that mankind uses for shelter and the environment of that
structure including all necessary services, facilities,
equipment and services needed for the physical health and
the social well-being of the family and individual".
According to Kiamba (1980), accessibility and costs of transportation to other urban locations are important locational aspects of housing. Characteristics of the
surrounding area and other environmental amenities affect the desirability of the residence.
In terms of economics, a house may be defined as
a consumer good demanded for the flow of services it
produces over its time. A house gives a diverse bundle of
services associated with shelter and comfort, independence and privacy, status and like all other durables, services
of a security and investment nature. These services may be
obtained either by buying or renting a house.
The Housing Market
A housing market is defined as a representation
of the interaction of the supply of goods and services and
the demand for those goods and services. An urban housing
65
market then specifically focuses this interaction on specific locations and types of environments. In addition how many
market works is defined by the 'terms of trade', that is the
schedules by which supply and demand convey, the characte
ristics of the goods exchanged and the rights or privileges. . 4conveyed in the transaction .
Housing markets differ from most other economic
markets in that for one, housing is locationally fixed, that
is, it is immobile, thus the consumers move to the goods
rather than the reverse, conventionally, there is no market
place. Locational fixity implies that the spatial characte
ristics of housing units, their location with respect to other
dwelling units, employment, shopping centres and neighbourhood
amenities are purchased jointly with structural characte
ristics. The close proximity of housing units in urban areas
indicates that there may be important physical or social
externalities inherent in the location chosen for housing consumption. In addition locational fixity also suggests
that dwelling units may differ, greatly in their accessibility. . . Dto production or consumption activities .
Another attribute of housing is that it is highly
durable, although there is a finite life expectancy for most
housing structures, that life span can be very long. The
durability of housing implies that there are fairly narrow
bounds to the rate of disinvestment in existing structures.i
6 6
Housing lasts a long time; old structures may become obsolete
but they do not necessarily loose substantial market valuecbecause of their vintage .
Housing as a good and service is so expensive that
house purchasing is a major investment decision for most
households. The high cost of constructing housing implies
not only that housing is expensive, but also that a large
rental market exists, and that mortgage repayment makes owner-
occupied housing an attractive instrument of wealth
accumulation. In addition, it makes the level of new construction of dwelling units and the occupancy costs for
prospective purchasers quite sensitive to macroeconomic
policy^.
Together, durability and supply cost indicate that
it is typically fairly expensive to convert a unit in the existing stock from one configuration to another, suggesting
that the supply curve for housing services (the flows of
consumption) is inelastic, even over relatively extended
periods and even if the elasticity of supply of newly
constructed units is rather elastic . Heterogeneity of
housing indicate that housing units differ in a number of
important dimensions, quantitatively and qualitatively, and
thus that units that command the same market price may be
viewed as substantially different by both suppliers and
demanders.
67
Together, durability, heterogeneity and locational fixity indicate that housing market is really a collection
of closely related but segmented markets for particular
packages or underlying commodities differentiated by size, physical arrangements, quality and location.
Finally, housing is characterised by low turnover
or stability of occupancy owing to the fact that most owners
do not sell their houses frequently. Physical durability and
stability of occupancy combine to make housing ‘markets be
dominated by the character of the existing stock of housing.
Only a small proportion of this stock enters into the market
for exchange over short periods of time. Thus there is always
a much greater potential for disequilibrium to develop between
housing supply and demand relative to other more fluid markets.
In the short run therefore, housing markets of geographical
distance regions can demonstrate substantial independence10.
Housing 'Need* and 'Demand'
Housing need and demand are two important aspects of
the housing market that need to be distinguished. Housing
need may be defined as the quantity of housing that is
required to provide accommodation of an agreed minimum
standard and above for a population given its size, household
composition, age, distribution, etc, without taking into
account the individual households' ability to pay for the
6 8
house assigned to it**. Housing need constitutes a number
of heterogeneous elements. It is possible to distinguish
between three primary aspects of housing need:
i) The need emanating from net additions to
population whether through natural increase or migration.
ii) The need ensuing from decrement of housing
units through absolescence or demolition.
iii) The backlog of housing need composed of people
who are either inadequately housed or without housing of any12kind at the present time
Increases in population resulting from both natural
increase and also migration which results in an increase in
population of particular areas necessitate continuous
additions to the housing stock, failure to which overcrowdingr
in existing dwellings and homelessness result. A constant
depletion of the housing stock exists in any housing situation
due to the loss of dwelling units through obsolescence, or
destruction through such calamities as fire, floods, etc.
Backlog of housing need relates to the annual construction required to eliminate deficiencies in existing housing supply.
The backlog of housing need is taken to comprise the number
of dwelling units required to house that part of the
population which, on the basis of available evidence is
either homeless or can be considered to be occupying over-
69
1 3crowded, unsanitary or improvised housing
Effective demand for housing on the other hand is
a measure of the quantity of housing that a defined group
of people can afford and are willing to purchase or rent at
given prices or rentals. Effective demand is therefore a14function of individuals' income
Housing demand on the other hand is an economic
concept because the standard and amount of housing a house
hold can command will be determined by income and ability
to pay. the achievement of a specified minimum standard of
housing is not implied in the concept of housing demand.
Demand for housing is affected by several parameters
including income, price of housing, population, availability
and cost of credit.
Consumer Theory and Housing Demand
In applying neoclassical models to housing demand
analysis, important assumptions are made regarding a consumer
behaviour, the nature of the commodity and the housing market.
These assumptions are:
1. There are many buyers and sellers
2. In relation to the aggregate volume of transactions the sales or purchases of each
household are insignificant.
70
3. There is no collusion amongst or between buyers and sellers.
4. There is a free entry and exit from the market
for both consumers and producers.
5. Consumers have continuous transitive and
established preferences over a wide range of
alternative choices of housing and non-housing
goods.
6. Consumers maximise total utility while producers
maximise total profits.
7. There are no artificial (non-price) restrictions
placed on the demands for suppliers and prices
of housing services and the resources used to
produce housing service. For instance house
purchases are not constrained by finance
rationing or the non-availability of preferred
housing choices.
9. The market is assumed to be in equilibrium.
These assumptions define a set of conditions
sufficient for the existence of a perfectly competitive
market in housing services. Within this framework, the
standard consumer choice model can easily be theoretically
applied to housing. If the household has a rational and
71
complete preference ordering defined over the array of
existing commodities, then by maximising utility subject to
the budget constraint equating household income with
expenditure over the relevant time period, it is possible
to express the quantity demanded of any particular commodity,
in this case housing, as a function of income, the price of
housing and the price of all other commodities. This
relationship is the demand function and its parameters can• • . . 15in principle be estimated empirically.
It is difficult to derive utility and demand
functions for housing due to certain characteristics of
housing which fall under four headings namely:
1. As a durable asset housing structures provide
both consumption and investment services and
they are usually purchased with loan finance.
2. Housing is a complex, multi-dimensional
commodity.
3. The standing stock is characterised by
'situation' attributes, defined in spatial or
» social terms, which generate inter-dependence
elements in household utility functions.
4. In the housing market, even in equilibrium,
there are likely to be frictional and search
72
costs which are significant enough to influence housing choice.
Durability is a characteristic having a direct
bearing on the factors determining the demand for housing
and influencing the specification of the housing utility
function and the income constraint. Since housing is a
durable commodity, households will have a long-time horizon
in making decisions about housing expenditure. With respect
to households' preferences for housing, there are two housing
markets. There is demand and supply of housing as an
investment good and supply for housing services. Households
participate in the later by renting houses.
With respect to housing attributes, economists have recognised that housing is a multi-dimensional commodity.
This implies that housing is a composite good, characterised
by a flow of services. These services represent a variable
mix of characteristics rather than for identifiable units of a commodity. Therefore, housing choice to a consumer depends
upon the identifiable or perceived attributes e.g. accessi
bility, quality or environment, number of rooms etc.
Factors Influencing Housing Demand
Economists have observed that an increase in urban
income may affect the demand for housing in either of two
73
ways. Firstly, it may affect the rate of household
formation, for example, by encouraging persons who were
previously doubling up into single households to move out
into their own houses. Secondly, income increases may lead
to economic independence of older children who may have been
having the need for privacy. Such children may thus move
out to form single family households. Increase in the rate
of household formation may also result from early marriages
which may be occasioned by income increases.
Another parameter affecting demand for housing is
price of houses. House prices may either increase or
decrease. An increase in house prices has the effect of
reducing households' effective demand for housing thus
causing an increase in doubling up as people find that they
are not in a position to purchase owner occupied houses or
afford the rental values in operation. Increased prices may
also lead to vacancies in the submarket in which prices have
increased. This would be due to people moving out of the higher units into cheaper available accommodation or doubling
up. Although economists argue that an increase in the price
of rental units causes people to move into owner occupied
units, practically this is a rare phenomenon because the
cost of owner occupied units remains prohibitive. Even
where a household may be able to afford mortgage repayment
for owner occupied units, there are other costs associated
74
with house purchase such as down-payments, legal costs and
government taxes which make the final price of the units unaffordable.
On the other hand, decreases of house-prices
increase households' effective demand for housing and
decreases the level of house vacancies. It may also lead
to household formation as households that were previously
doubling up split up into several single households units.
This 'doubling' up will however, occur if there is
availability of alternative accommodation. Like price
increases, price decreases will also lead to vacancies in
the submarket in which prices do not decrease, that is,
vacancies will occur in higher priced units as people move
into the price-reduced units.
As noted earlier in this chapter, some of the
characteristics of housing as an economic commodity are
durability and cost. In view of its durability, investment
funds in housing are required to be tied up for relatively
long periods of time. With respect to its being expensive,
housing requires huge amounts of resources for its
acquisition, therefore necessitating mortgage credit. Thus
availability or non-availability of cheap mortgage credit
can increase or decrease households' effective demand
respectively.
75
Factors Affecting Housing Supply
Supply of housing is measured in actual physical
housing units in the market at any period of time. There
is firstly, an inventory of housing units in use and this
includes not only units which are occupied, which may be
defined as primary units, but also those that are un
occupied, that is, vacant habitable units. Secondly,
there are additions of new housing under conventional
construction, new units under factory construction
(prefabricated housing units or mobile units) and additions
of other 'new' housing units as a result of sub-divisions
of existing residential structures, conversions of transient
and semi-permanent quarters into permanent units or
adaptations of other existing structures in housing units.
Thirdly, there are removals of existing housing units as a
consequence of man-made causations such as demolition and
abandonments as well as natural calamities such asdestruction of housing units as a result of floods and
16other natural causes
One of the components of housing supply is land.
Land for housing is essential for access to employment,
infrastructure and social services. The provision of land
for housing is complicated by the fact that land has many
uses other than for shelter and access. Among productive
uses, housing competes for land with industrial, commercial,
76
administrative and recreational uses. These factors cause
land to be expensive; and the price of land is a major factor
in determining the use of land for housing. Differences in
land price also reflect variations in accessibility of the
location of any house to the Central Business District (CBD)
and other centres of work opportunities17. Therefore, land
makes up a high proportion of total dwelling cost.
The installation of services in the form of roads,
water supply, sewerage, drainage and other utilities turns
raw land into land suitable for housing. Although individuals
or groups of people can build roads, schools and health
centres, the servicing of land is generally undertaken by
governments directly or through public corporations. These services are by nature, spatially fixed and have high fixed
costs. The choice of level of service must be made to accommodate the preference and willingness to pay of ui ban
households who are targetted to occupy any housing estate.
The next component of housing supply is the cost of
construction. The proportion of housing cost allocated to
construction varies considerably as a result of dii-fer in the cost of materials and labour, construction techniques,
the size of the structure and the cost oj. other housir j
components.
77
A final and very important component of housing
supply is financial resources. Investment in urban housing involves purchase of land, construction of dwelling, and
the provision of associated physical and social services.
Financing of house purchase involves long term commitments
by lenders to a highly non-liquid form of wealth. Dwellings
are subject also to fluctuations in value quite apart from
ordinary wear and tear on the physical structure. Changes
in the surrounding neighbourhood and in public service
networks can alter the value of a house in much the same
way as changes in the amount of living space the house
provides. Lenders therefore demand compensation for the
risk involved in housing finance. This causes high
interest rates on the finances allocated for housing in
financial institutions.
Factors Affecting Housing Supply
The most important factor which influences the
supply of housing is the expected return from housing
investment. The level of a housing developer s pio^jt is
defined as the difference between the final sale price of
the produced unit and the sum of all production costs.The final sale price of a housing unit is in turn influenced
by the prices of existing stock and the developer will have
to influence over this price normally
78
Thcie are two important issues that influence the
returns on housing investments. These issues are; vacancies,
and current inventories. Vacancies are a function of rents,and prices of existing stock or the cost and availability of
credit and residential mobility among housing stock. But
vacancies may also be a function of market imperfections
such as where there is lack of knowledge regarding the
vacancy level in some submarkets by those demanding houses.
Vacancies may appear in one market when there is extreme
shortage in another or the owner of the units themselves
may not know of the existence of demand for vacant units.
Information flows in the housing market are important
causes of housing vacancies and therefore of housing supply.A market that is characterised by little imperfect information
may also be characterised by little construction activity < vcn ̂ . *18if demand is not the ovending constraint
High vacancy levels that persist over relatively
long periods of time usually point to a future lowering cl
house prices in that particular market. Investors wall !-r;l usually start any new construction in a market characterised
by a high level of vacancies. On the other hand if the
level of vacancies is low or if there is a high tate household movement 'into vacant units, house developers
take this as an indication to start new construction.
79
The housing stock at any period of time may be
divided into two submarkets. These are; new construction
and old units (those that would be competitive with new
stock as opposed to those that would not). Old units
within the existence of new stock are potentially
substitutable for new stock unless their physical condition
is so poor that buyers consider them to be qualitatively
much inferior to new stock. If the quality attributes of
the new stock and the old stock are comparable, then all
these units may be considered to be in the same submarket and should command the same rent. The supply of new housing
therefore is determined by qualitative dominance of old
units that the consumer regards as being competitive with
new stock and the prices that the units demand.
The second factor affecting housing supply is the
cost of producing new units. The housing developer is an
enterpreneur who is after maximising his profits. Before
investing in housing, he considers other investment outlets.
Higher property prices are an indication of potentially
higher profits and will encourage the devloper of higher
housing schemes. However, if the rate at which construction
cost rise is higher then the growth in property prices in
the same period, the rate of return on new construction
might be actually less than the returns obtained by investing
in old stock. Periods of high rises in construction costs
80
are usually associated with a smaller volume of new housing
schemes. Important costs that would be considered in terms
of housing include the cost of raw materials e.g. cement,
sand, electrical equipment, paint, timber etc., cost of land, cost of transport, and cost of professional services.
If costs are low relative to the prices of houses, supplies
will go up. If costs are low and prices are low, there might
not be any substantial change in supply of privately owned
housing.
The third main factor, affecting housing supply is
the cost and availability of construction finance. The actual
construction of a housing development scheme will depend on
the availability of short-term construction finance needed
for one or two years while construction lasts. The
availability and cost of short term credit enables the
execution of new housing projects. Increased supplies of
mortgage funds is an indicator of potential increased demand
for housing, and leads to greater supply of housing units.
Developers will endeavour to complete projects faster if
mortgage facilities will be availed to contending home-owners.
In addition to the loan repayments, there are other
annual costs such as maintenance and repair, insurance, rates,
land rent, administrative costs etc. Housing developers rely
heavily on the use of credit to finance housing construction.
It is generally accepted that changes in the volume of credit
81
is linked to the general increase in the level of
construction activity; and with a high level of economic activity.
The Market
The housing market may be divided into two broad
categories. These are; the house purchase market, and the
rental housing market. The house purchase market is merely
concerned with the process by which the market for houses
owned by individuals works. It deals with factors affecting
supply and demand for individual houses. In the house
purchase market, demand arises from households who wish to
purchase their housing service by buying the asset for owner
occupation. The rental housing market arises from households
who opt to purchase their housing services through periodic
payments, called rents. These guarantee ownership for only
a period of time determined by agreements between landlords
and tenants.
A housing unit may be measured either in terms of
physical stock (how many) or in terms of flow of services
it yields per period of time. Consumers will regard housing
as varying in value according to their external locational
setting and their internal or dwelling attributes of size,
type and amenities.
82
Given a single dwelling, its owner and prospective
buyer assumed to be well informed persons, the buyer will
consider the collection of attributes that the dwelling
represents and on the basis of his valuation of these
attributes he will then decide upon the maximum price that
he will be willing to pay for that particular dwelling. At
the same time, the owner will have a minimum price for which
he would be willing to sell his house. The exact price at
which the transaction takes place will depend on the
respective bargaining strength of the buyer and seller.
There are however, occasions when no buyer has a ceiling
price which is equal to or greater than the seller's floor
price. In such a case many dwellings remain unsold.
Alternatively there might be more sellers than buyers or
more buyers than sellers. If there are more buyers than
sellers, some buyers will fail to obtain a house while
if there are more sellers than buyers, some dwellings will
remain unsold. Under such circumstances the buyers and
sellers may revise their ceiling and floor prices on the
basis of their past experiences.
With respect to the rental market, the interaction
of demand and supply will give the level of rent that will
be paid in a free market condition. In the short term, the
stock of rental accommodation will be fixed and the short
run supply schedule will be inelastic. In the long run,
83
excess profits brought about by tenants offering relatively
higher rents in competition for the limited amount of housing
will encourage developers to put up more rental houses and
the supply will go up.
Filtering
Under the free market, absent from governmentinterferance, the principal means by which the housing✓occupied by the lowest income class is upgraded is by means
of the filtering down process. Bourne and Hitchcook
define "filtering down" in the housing market as the process
in which the real housing consumption of families or of
households changes over time, whether by the depreciation
or renovation of the same dwelling unit or by the choice
of a different dwelling unit (which may be newly constructed
or has experienced depreciation, renovation or conversion
from a different type). The process may involve changes in
real incomes and or changes in the relative price of housing19services.
As the middle income class moves into small new
houses or larger houses which have been discarded by the
upper-income class, they pass their former houses onto the
poor. The lowest income class progresses only if the
filtering down process is proceeding faster than the
aging of the houses being vacated. Any tendency or public
84
policy that speeds the rate of construction of new housing
increases the rate of turnover at the top, therefore raises. 20 housing standards all the way down the line
The "filtering down" process has been viewed by
various people as a faster change in home values and rents
relative to all residential prices and rents, consumer
prices and consumer incomes. It seems that a shift in
values or rents in any direction is accompanied by change
in occupancy; and that the process leads to some sections
of the existing stock to become vacated and occupied by
lower income groups.
Kiamba (1980) identifies two processes of filtering,
filtering down and filtering up. Filtering down occurs if
the income of the person moving out is higher than the income
of the person moving into the same house during the shifting
of values/rents and change of occupancy, the opposite of this will be the filtering up. In Nairobi, the most prevalent
case of filtering has been the filtering up processs. This
has been symbolised by houses which are not or have become
unaffordable to households for whom they were intended.
This has been as a result mainly of high interest rates and
inflation. The studies carried out on housing estates such
as Pumwani and Umoja among others reveal that they are
occupied by middle income households although they had been
targetted for low income households.
85
Filtering process depends on the actions of middle
and high income/cost range of the housing market. This
would largely be accounted for by the high levels of housing
provision, construction or injection on this top end of the21market.
Market Imperfections
A perfect market concept or model which was
implied by neo classical economists in their description of
market mechanism was a self-regulating market. Demand and
supply were never far out of balance, the commodity traded
was in the form of standardised units that were quickly
supplied, easily divisible into convenient units, quickly
consummable, easily transportable. Traders were supposed
to be informed of all transactions in the market that is,
there was supposed to be perfect information. In the case
of the real estate market in general, the basic economic
laws are the same as in the theoretical perfect market but
the real estate market is far from perfect, It is subjected
to sluggish reactions which leads to a constant state of
imbalance such that while demand for real property is
dynamic, supply is static.
Some of the causes of imperfections in the real
estate market (of which the housing market is a component)
are due to the fact that real estate is heterogeneous.
8 6
Every parcel of real property is different from all others.
Each parcel of land (on which houses are built) is special
and unique and there are hardly any standardised features.
There is also the problem that while in a perfect free
market buyers and sellers are fully aware of what is going
on, they are in sufficient numbers to prevent any one buyer
or seller (or any groups of buyers or sellers) from exerting
a significant influence of price, and each product is
sufficiently like every other product to be substituted for
it. Unfortunately, real estate markets do not meet this
criteria. Firstly, very little realiable information is
available on market prices. Secondly, the potential number
of buyers for a property may be severelly limited because of
the location of the property. Under such conditions, each
transaction involves a great deal of bargaining on the price
with either the buyer or seller in an advantageous position.
Real estate is not a perfect product for a market
place in which the free play between supply and demand is
supposed to result in an equilibrium price which provides a
maximum desirable distribution of the product. There is
also lack of sufficient number of transactions relating to
property which hampers the recognition of a perfect market
price.
87
The second cause of imperfections is that there is
no central market for real property. This means lack of
communication between buyers and sellers as most transactions
are conducted in private. Changes in the market conditions take a longer time to be generally recognised. Accurate
information on sale prices and terms is hard to discover
because there is no central timely place to provide complete
information.
Another factor causing imperfections is time lag.
A long period of time which is required for planning and
building new structures delays the response of supply to
pressures of demand.
The physical fixity and hence relative permanence
of the structure, the design and other features mean that
it is not readily adjustable to changing needs.
The characteristics of real estate as an economic
good are not the only factors which contribute to the
imperfections of the free market system. For example, the
size and cost of housing is such that financing terms are
more important than total price in determining whether the
property will be purchased. The uniqueness of each property22further creates problems in establishing a price.
8 8
The Housing Situation in Nairobi
The prime factors affecting the housing situation in Nairobi have been identified as:
i) Population growth
ii) Income growth and distribution
According to the population census conducted in
1979, Nairobi had a total of 827,775 inhabitants. The
estimated population in the city in 1983 was 1,006,000
persons with a projected population of approximately231,284,000 in 1988 at a rate of growth of 5% per annum
However, this rate of population growth is primarily
affected by in-migration which, it has been estimated,
accounts for about 75% of the growth. The population
statistics for Nairobi may be translated into data regarding
households and formation to give a picture of the housing
situation confronting the city. The 1979 population census
reported a total of 200,474 household residents within the
limits of the city's administrative boundaries and it was
estimated that there would be an increase of 67,800 house
holds between 1983-88. This represents an additional 13,600
households annually, which implies that if a dwelling unit
were to be furnished for each additional household, 37 units
would have to be provided daily . This would only take care
89
of additional households with deficiencies in the present
stock not being taken into consideration.
However, while there is a need of approximately 13,600 supplemental dwelling units annually, the total output
in both the formal and informal sectors totalled only about
5,000 units in 1983, which represented less than 40% of the
city's requirements . The formal supply can provide only
a minimal fraction of the required housing production and
present housing production rates are more than inadequate for
meeting the housing requirements of Nairobi's ever increasing
population.
The National Development Plan for the plan period
1984-88 had publication of the planned physical housing
output of 7,000 serviced plots, 400 rental units, 200 up
graded units and a further 1,150 units for mortgage/tenant
purchase or owner builder . This translated to a total output of only 8,750 units against a need of 68,000 additional
units over the 5 year plan period.
Income growth and distribution is another important
parameter affecting the housing situation in Nairobi. This
owes to the fact that a household's income level determines
not only that households purchasing power and ability to pay
for housing but also the quantity and quality of housing a
household will find and be able to occupy. Enumeration in
the 1979 population census indicated that if the economically
active age group in Nairobi is taken as that group of persons
falling between the ages of 15 to 59 years, then the economi
cally active population comprises a total of 530,000 persons,
about 64% of the city's population.
[ In cases of high per capita income, its concentrated
in the hands of few upper income households leading to lack of
adequate purchasing power to the lower income groups who are
the majority of urban dwellers.
- 90 -
Table 3.1 Income Levels in Wage Employment Sector in
Nairobi for 1980
Income No. Employed in that Group
%
Under 215 952 0.4215 - 399 11,381 4.7400 - 699 52,274 21.6700 - 999 52,066 21.6
1000 - 1499 40,569 16.81500 - 1999 26,053 10.82000 - 2999 22,389 9.23000 - 5999 22,526 9.36000 + 11,793 5.7
Source: Development Planning Unit, London, NairobiProject, 1983, London, 1983.
91
From this table, it is clear that of the total
population in the wage employment sector for the year 1980,
26.7% were earning up to KSh. 699/- per month while the
figure for those earning less than KSh. 1,500 per month was
65.0%. ONly 24.2% of those engaged in wage employment had
a monthly income in excess of Ksh.2,000/- per month.
Economists have recommended that 25% of the
household income be the optimum expenditure on housing for
any household. Thus if a household is disbursing 25% of the household income on housing, it can be considered to be
living in affordable housing. An examination of the income
levels in wage employment sector in 1980 will establish that
75.8% of the population in this sector would have to spend
not more than Shs.500 per month on housing if they were to
be adjudged to be living in affordable housing. These low
income earners who are evidently the majority, have such low
purchasing power that they are constrained to turn to illegal
forms of housing provision because the conventional market
cannot provide housing for them.
One of the reasons that has caused high population
growth in Nairobi and which has in turn aggravated the poor
housing situation in the city is rural urban immigration.
This phenomenon has been caused by the unproportional
industrialisation of Nairobi compared to rural areas. This
^ M I w r in m i r\ v
tuitaoniAH_____________________________________________Map 3: NAIROBI: POPULATION DENSITIESSource: King'oriah, G.K.; Policy Impacts on Urbc
93
has made Nairobi attractive as a source of employment
opportunities and other income sources. The rate of
construction of residential housing has not matched the
high increase in population growth (See Table in the next
page) . This population growth has continued to exert
pressure on available housing.
Rural-urban migration is not the -only cause of
the increase in Nairobi households, high national and urban population growth in Kenya average about 4% per year. This
growth rate has burdened investment in housing. It has
exerted demands not only on available housing but also on
other services such as water, health facilities etc. Since
the economy is not growing at the same rate as the
population, enough employment opportunities are not being
generated for the massive labour force to enable them
purchase acceptable housing.
Other factors that have contributed to the acute
housing shortage facing Nairobi residents and in particular
the low income earners have been identified to include lack
of proper security which they could pledge to private
financial institutions to obtain mortgage loans with which
to improve their housing conditions. While private
developers have found housing for low income earners
unprofitable hence concentrating on the middle income to
94
Table 3.2 Estimated increase in Households in Nairobi,Kenya 1971 - 1985
Year Number of households
1971 136,0001972 145,3001973 155,3001.974 166,0001975 177,4001976 189,5001977 202,300197 8 215,6001979 229,3001980 243,7001981 258,6001982 274,0001983 290,0001984 307,0001985 324,700
Source: Nairobi Housing Needs. Meeting the challenge, Cooper and Lybrand with Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham 1976, pp.213
95
high income housing, the public sector has also shifted
from the provision of cheaper housing to middle income 27housing . This phenomenon has led to the prevalent
situation whereby housing units that are trully for the
low income are not available as no one is developing them.
This has relegated low income households to slums and hence the mushrooming of slum areas in Nairobi.
FOOTNOTES
1. Chester Rapkins, Louis Winnick, Davind Blanks; "Housing Market Analysis: A Study of Theory and Methods”:A Housing and Home Finance Agency Research Monograph, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953.
2. Louis Winnick, Housing Market Analysis; US Government Printing Office, 1955, P.432.
3. P. M. syagga; "Housing Policy and Systems inKenya, Nairobi's Exprience": International Workshop onHousing, Nairobi, 1987, UNCHS, PGCHS, P.l.
4. C. M. Kiamba; "The Housing Market and the Housing Question": Paper Prepared for Seminar on The Role of the Private Sector in Housing Development in Kenya: Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, 1980, P.2.
5. Larry S. Bourne, John R. Hitchcock, "Urban Housing Markets"; Recent Directions in Research and Policy; Proceedings of a Conference at University of Toronto,Oct. 27 - 29, 1977, University of Toronto Press, 1978, P.ll.
6. P. Mieskowski, M., Straszheim, M., Current Issues in Urban Economics; John Hopkins University Press, London, 1979, P. 392.
7. Ibid, P.393.
8. Larry S. Bourne, John R. Hitchcock; "Urban Housing Markets"; Recent Directors in Research and Policy; Proceedings of a Conference at University of Toronto,Oct. 27 - 29, 1977, University of Toronto Press, 1978, P.24.
96
9. P. Mieszkowski, M. Straszheim; Current Issues in Urban Economics; John Hopkins University Press, London, 1979,P. 393.
10. Ibid, P..394.
11. Larry S. Bourne, John R. Hitchcock; "Urban Housing Markets"; Recent Directors in Research and Policy: Proceedings of a Conference at University of Toronto,Oct. 27 - 29, 1977, University of Toronto Press, 1978, P. 25.
12. Ray Robinson; Housing Economics and Public Policy: "Studies in Planning"; The MacMillan Press, University of Sussex, 1979, P. 21.
13. United Nations; World Housing Conditions and Estimated Housing Reguirements; United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, 1965. P. 1.
14. Ibid, P.3.
15. Patricia Atieno Adala; An Economic Study of Urban Housing Markets in Nairobi; M.A. Thesis, University of Nairobi, 1978, Unpublished, P.4.
16. Duncan MacLennan; Housing Economics; Longman, London, 1982, P. 35 - 36.
17. K. Kokus Jr.; Housing Reguirements for the 1970s and 1980s; For the Financial and Economic Task Force; The National Association of Home Builders, Washington D.C., 1974,P. 3.
18. Orville F. Frimes, Jr.: Housing for Low IncomeUrban Families; John Hopkins University Press, London, 1976, P. 3.
19. Patricia Atieno Adala; An Economic Study of the Urban Housing Markets in Nairobi; M .A . Thesis, University of Nairobi, 1978, Unpublished, P.41.
20. Larry S. Bourne, John R. Hitchcock, "Urban Housing Markets"; Recent Directors in Research and Policy;Proceedings of a Conference at University of Toronto,Oct. 27 - 29, 1977, University of Toronto Press, 1978, P. 139.
21. Wilbur R. Thompson; A Preface to Urban Economics; The John Hopkins University Press, 1965.
i
97
22. C. M. Kiamba, The Housing Market and The HousingQuestion: Prepared for Seminar on The Role of the PrivateSector in Housing Development in Kenya: Ministry of Housingand Urban Development, 1980, P.8.
23. James R. Cooper; Real Estate and Urban Land Analysis; D.C., Health and Co., 1974 , P. 26.
24. Development Planning Unit, London; Nairobi Project, 1983; London, 1983, P. 28.
25. Ibid, P. 30.
26. Ibid, P. 39.
27. Republic of Kenya, 1984-88 Development Plan, Government Printer, Nairobi, 1983, P. 168.
28. Jonah, M. Ichoya; Towards a Housing For Nairobi;M.A. Thesis; Unpublished, University of Nairobi, 1974 , P. 40.
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA ANALYSIS
Introduction
The main objective of this study was to identify
the factors that influence residential location decisions
in households of different socio-economic status.
The previous chapters analyse such issues as
theories of residential location, sociological aspects
influencing residential patterns in urban areas, historical
development of Nairobi's residential pattern and the urban
housing market with special reference to the housing
situation in Nairobi. Each of these topics is analysed with
the view of determining to what extent it affects housing
location decisions within households; the economic operation
of the theories of city structure may affect the shape of
Nairobi's residential structure, and with effect to the
housing market, residential space is to a large extent
structured by the meshing of housing supply and allocation
on the one hand and the pattern of housing demand on the
other. This chapter undertakes studies and analyses on
social economic characteristics of households as well as
dwelling characteristics of their present and previously
occupied houses.
99
An individual who wishes to buy land to live upon
considers how big the land is, how close to the City Centre,
character and racial composition of the neighbourhood,
quality of schools in the vicinity, how far away he would be
from any relatives he might have in the City and a host of
other factors. According to Alonso, the individual merely
wishes to maximise his satisfaction by owning and consuming
the goods he likes and avoiding those he dislikes. The
family therefore spends whatever money it has available in maximising satifaction1.
In these analyses, the research interviewed house
holds to determine what factors and in what order of
importance influenced their decisions with respect to housing
choices. In his attempt to analyse the theory of residential2location, Evans (1973) assumes that the workplace of all
workers in the City is at a single central place, that is,
Central Business District (CBD) and that the cost and speed
of travel is a function from the CBD. However, this
assumption would be a misleading assumption for purposes of
this study. Nairobi residents are known to work in many\
other places besides the CBD. Some work as far as Thika
while others work within the city boundaries but outside
the CBD. Distance and place of work has therefore been
considered as an important factor with respect to housing
location decisions.
100
Virirakis suggests that a relationship exists in
the degree of separation between workplace and residence
which is determined by an equilibrium between the tendency
to reduce the residence - to - workplace distance and the
tendency to search for a more advantageous place of
residence in terms of cost, amenities and environment.
Indeed the studies in this chapter analyse these three
factors and their respective roles and relative importance
in housing location decisions among households of different
socio-economic compositions, with the aim of achieving the
earlier stated objectives of the study.
House Types
The residential areas surveyed had a variety of
house types. However, it was observed while some estates
had more than one house type, there were others which had
just one house type. Examples of such are Umoja and Otiende
Estates whose households interviewed lived in semi-detached
and detached bungalows respectively.
Tables 4.1 - 4.3 show the distribution of house
types in the case study. The percentages are shown in
brackets. Kibera and Kawangware which are very low income
residential areas have mainly rows of rooms which vary in
sizes as well as some 'Swahili-type' houses with an interior,
3
MAP No.4 Nairobi, Residential Areas (X indicates study areas)
/rJ
v SPRING"j/KIKUYU /
2 3 UtfTMURWA24 SMAURIMoYO25 tA M ATl 7C KALoLfc>J|Z7 MAKONf̂tin ZO MAHK>HA21 POOJrtOlM(l) 50 fABOTP4A
51 fcOOHHOCMfii)52 JttU5ALt>A 55 VAAZnVJOO M J EKJ CKO % MAVACASA2T7 LVyio/^_3<£^KAMAU<jK>ACCl_]____
*>1
r s T) .X •'/' u
___./ V7\ULGV\ ActAbeV.
\ ' /— ..Jr K IL E IE S H - J '*'“N i , ' ' — p iim WANI '
• & ( W A ^ < ; M B O R E T - ' , \ C EN TR AL • s n &NI ‘- V 1- I1W /
V —JuwjrijX
/ / \ X"V'iHaramba^
\ K \/' ̂ / Wy V ^ / \ ' ,Dnn, ' EASTLEIGH. ̂ 52 ' \ EE \x v^x.' / I ) \ KAIR“SI ! s+\ \LV<r— r 'Upper \ /) \ / T \ \■ * \uiii V / v v* Jijo * / 1 — _>—•— v ̂‘te IKILIMAHI .iH,LL '-- i » C /x27 '129 5oT^---I y i i • \ v //e\ — — \^ • i s r r ^ °t : ; \ « » >\ ______ / .>'WESI \.J O-'JWEST N.’V ' c
■, u \ \M u n ic ip a l Boundary ’ ' \ / C \ ^ ^ C »S e clio n * ̂ ' ■• J ' " ' ~— -•'* 'V2 M.U*
- i•(ilonx̂T̂vVGAME
mm
R E S E R V E
_____^T_^fD __
r'
Urban Land S. Residential Markets Analysis in Kenya (1989)Source: Ondiege, P.O.,
101
1 0 2
open courtyard. Other estates such as Buruburu and
Plainsview have only maisonnettes and semi-detached%
bungalows. All the other areas have more than two house
types, that is maisonnettes, flats, bungalows etc. The
house sizes vary in size from single rooms in Kibera and
Kawangware to as many as five bedrooms in Lavington. The
typical estate designs such as Buruburu and Plainsview
have either three or four bedrooms with Plainsview ones
having Servants Quarters. Riruta Satelite which is what
would be referred to as an unplanned neighbourhood has
mainly single family detached or semi-detached houses, with
many plots having more than one building in them. This area
as well as Kawangware had some houses constructed of
permanent materials mainly stones with tiled roofs while
others were of either temporary or semi-permanent materials
mainly mua-and-wattle or timber. With the exception of
Kibera, where half of the houses surveyed were built of
mud-and-wattle, all the other houses were of permanent
materials which varied in quality from the asbestos roofing
sheets and concrete block walls of Umoja through to natural
stone, roofing tiles and expensive finshes of Kilimani,
Parklands and Lavington.
i V J t v J C l X i J U U A w u W i . 1 1 V u o v . o u i v t r y t r u ill u n e
case studies
House Type
# Maisonette Flat Detached
BungalowSemi-DBungalow
Detachedroom
Semi-Droom Tota]
Lavington 4 2 10 1 3 - 20Kilimani 7 ' 4 2 4 3 - 20Parklands 5 5 6 4 - - 20Eastleigh 3 12 - - - 5 20Buruburu 19 - - 11 - - 30Umo ja - - - 30 - - 30Otiende - - 20 - - - 20Kibera - - 8 - - 12 20Plainsview 14 6 20Satelite(Riruta) 2 4 8 •4 - 2 20
Kawangware - 2 2 - 2 14 20
Total 54 29 56 60 8 33 240
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88 Table 4.2Distribution of house types in percentages surveyed for this Study
House type Total No. in case studies PercentagesMaisonettes 54 • 22.5Flats 29 12.08D-Bungalows 56 23.3S-D 60 25D-Rooms 8 3.3S-D Rooms 33 13.75Total 240 100
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
104
Table 4.3 Distribution of House Types Sampled for thisStudy in Percentages
Area Maisonnette Flat DetachedBungalow
Semi-DBungalow
DetachedRoom
Semi-DRoom
Lavington 7.4 6.9 17.9 1.7 37.5 0
Kilimani 1.3 13.8 3.6 6.7 37.5 0
Parklands 9.3 17.2 10.7 6.7 0 0
Eastleigh 5.6 41.4 0 0 0 15.2
Buruburu 3.5 0 0 18.3 0 0
Umoja 0 0 0 50 0 0
Otiende 0 0 35.7 0 0 0
Kibera 0 0 14.3 0 0 36.4
Plainsview 26 0 0 10 0 0
Satelite(Riruta) 3.7 13.8 14.3 0 0 6.1
Kawangware 0 6.9 3.6 6.7 25 42.6
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
Interviewee
Interviewees were either owner occupants or tenants,
in some cases there were some who were employer housed. In
cases of employer housing, the interviewee was also asked if
they would choose to live in that particular house even if
it was not employer provided. Almost all of these answered in
105
the affirmative. However, a few of these employer housed
interviewees felt that they could not afford to pay rents
in the areas that the employer houses had been provided,
hence they would not live there if they had to pay the rents themselves.
Table 4.4 Distribution of Types of Interviewees
Area Interviewee
OwnerOccupier
Tenant EmployerHousing
Lavington 8 8 4Kilimani 6 10 4Parklands 9 7 4Eastleigh 6 14 -Buruburu 7 20 3Umo ja 12 18 -Otiende 6 14 -Kibera 6 14 -Plainsview 7 8 5Satelite 9 11 -Kawangware 7 13
Total 83 137 20
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
106
Sizes and Ages of Families
It was quite apparent from the surveys that while
some estates were dominated by young families, others had
mixtures of both young and old families while others were
characterised by older families. By young families are
cases where the head of the family is below 40 years and
the children are below their teenage years. Older families
are cases where the head of the family is above 40 years
and the children are within or above teenage.
Another variable of interest was family size. Some
areas (especially those within high density areas such as
Umoja, Riruta, Eastleigh) had large family sizes, areas
such as (Plainsview, Otiende and Buruburu) had medium size
families while those in low density areas (such as Lavington,
Kilimani and Parklands) had small family sizes. Small family size typically refers to families with 3 or less
children, medium family has 4 or less children and large
has more than 4 children.
In low density, high income residential areas
such as Lavington and Kilimani, interviewees from each of
the six 'detached rooms' (these were servant quarters
which are rented out and either the servants lived in the
main house or there were many detached rooms, enough for
the servant/s and for letting). The occupants of these
107
rooms were in all cases young unmarried women. However,
in detached and semi-detached rooms in areas such as
Kibera, Kawangware and Satelite, these were occupied by
households of varying sizes.
Table 4.5 Family Sizes in Case Studies
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
108
These family sizes are exclusively of servants.
They are those of the nuclear family and in some cases as
found in Parklands area among the Asian community elderly
parents living with their married children on permanent
basis. It can be observed that in most areas studied, many
of the households had family sizes of 4 to 6 family members
only Kibera had nine (9) out of the 20 households studied
with seven (7) or more family members.
Table 4.6 Family Size Distributed in Percentages (%)
Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 +
Lavington 15 5 15 25 30 5 5 0Kilimani 15 5 10 20 35 10 5 0Parklands 15 0 10 25 30 10 5 5Eastleigh 25 5 0 20 20 15 10 5Buruburu 17 3 20 13 17 20 7 3Umoja 0 17 10 23 30 17 3 0Otiende 0 5 15 5 40 30 5 0Kibera 10 0 5 5 10 25 20 25Plainsview 0 0 5 25 25 15 30 0Satelite 10 15 10 10 15 15 20 5Kawangware 10 5 5 10 25 20 10 15
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
109
For each of these areas, the mediun family sizes are as
shown in the Table below.
Table 4.7 Family Sizes
Area Median Family Size
Lavington 4Kilimani 4Parklands 4Eastleigh 4Buruburu 4Umo j a 5Otiende 5Kibera 5Plainsview 5Satelite 5Kawangware 5
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
The commonest family size in these areas was that of 5 having been the most common in six (6) out of the eleven case studies.
Eastleigh had the highest incidence of single person - families; this being as a result of the many single
rooms of bedsitters as well as one bedroomed flats which were
more common there than in any other case study. Family sizes
110
of two (2) as was common in Umoja and Satelite mostly
comprised of single women each living with a child as
opposed to the more rare case of childless couples.
Ages of Family Members
Ages of family members surveyed ranged from babies
of less than one year to elderly people of over sixty (60)
years. It was however noted that most families had family
heads of under 50 years. This can probably be explained
by the fact that most people retire at around 50 years and
prefer to settle down in their rural homes instead of staying
in the estates while not working. Incidences of family
members who were above 50 years of age were to be found
mostly in Parklands where some members of the Asian Community
were found to be living with their elderly parents.
Table 4.8 shows the distribution of ages of family
members in case study.
Ill
Table 4.8 Ages of Family Members
Age 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Over 51
Lavington 32 20 17 20 11 -Kilimani 30 25 15 16 14 -Parklands 24 10 14 19 15 18Eastleigh 35 17 14 20 14 -Buruburu 43 10 20 24 3 -Umoja 40 15 16 28 1 -Otiende 32 25 6 22 15 -Kibera 56 10 13 20 1 -Plainsview 50 10 5 31 4 -Satelite 28 20 20 16 12 4Kawangware 30 28 14 19 9
'
Source: Own Field Survey
It can be observed
1987/88
that while there is an even
distribution of family members between the ages of 11 - 20,
some areas notably Kibera and Plainsview have a high
proportion of children aged between 0 and 10 years. As
earlier mentioned, there are hardly any families with
members aged above 51 years apart from Parklands and
Satelite. The presence of elderly family members in Satelite can be explained by the fact that this is a semi-
rural area where most people own land where they were born
and brought up. The incidence of old family members in
Parklands has already been explained.
1 1 2
Table 4.9 Ages of household heads
Area 25-30 31-35Age
36-40 41-45 46-50 over 50
Lavington 4 4 5 4 3 -Kilimani 5 3 4 4 4 -Parklands 6 6 5 1 2 -Eastleigh 6 5 5 4 - -Buruburu 11 7 9 2 - -Umo ja 5 15 9 1 - -Otiende 1 4 4 11 - -Kibera 6 6 7 1 - -Plainsview 1 7 10 1 1 -Satelite 5 4 4 2 1 4Kawangware 8 3 3 5 1 —
Source: Field Survey
Table 4.10 Ages of household heads in percentages
Area 25-30 31-35Age36-40 41-45 46-50 over 50
Lavington 20 20 25 20 15 -Kilimani 25 15 20 20 20 -Parklands 30 30 25 5 10 -Eastleigh 30 25 25 20 - -Buruburu 37 23 30 7 3 -Umo ja 17 50 30 3 - -Otiende 5 20 20 55 - -Kibera 30 30 35 5 - —Plainsview 5 35 50 5 5 —Satelite 25 20 20 10 5 20Kawangware 40 15 15 25 5
Source: Field Survey
113
The Tables 4.8 - 4.10 reveal that there is
considerable variable in the ages of family heads in the
different case studies. Kwangware followed by Buruburu
had the highest cases of young household heads i.e.
40% and 37% respectively. Otiende and Plainsview had the
fewest cases of household heads falling in the 31-35 age
bracket which is also relatively young. Indeed half of
the households sampled in Umoja had their heads falling
within that age bracket. Kawangware and Kilimani had the
lowest (5% for each cases of household heads falling
within the 31-35 age bracket. Plainsview had the highest
number of household heads falling within the 36-40 years of
age bracket with half (50%) of all the household heads in
this age bracket. Kawangware had the fewest cases of house
hold heads falling within this age bracket with only 15%
falling therein. In the 41-45 years age bracket, Otiende
had the highest percentage in the entire study. This age
bracket was also marked by very low percentages of
occurence; e.g. 3% in Umoja, while Parklands, Kibera and
Plainsview each revealed 5% of household heads falling
within this age bracket with respect to the 46-50 years age bracket. The highest occurence of household heads within
this bracket was in Kilimani where 20% of household heads
were within this bracket. Other areas namely Eastleigh,
Umoja, Otiende and Kibera did not have any household heads
114
within that age bracket. The other areas had only few
household heads in Buruburu to 15% in Lavington. Only
Riruta Satelite had cases of household heads of above
50 years. This areas had 20% of all its household heads
in the households studied being over 50 years. In no
other area was there any household head of over 50 years.
Table 4.11 Distribution of Ages of Household Heads
Age Bracket Total No. Found Percentage
25-30 58 24.231-35 64 26.736-40 65 2741-45 36 1546-50 13 5.4Above 50 4 1.7
Total 240 100
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
It is clear from the above table that the age bracket of 36-40 had the highest number of household heads,
accounting for 27% of all the household heads. Hoever, the
highest proportion of household heads were 40 years and below
In fact 77.9% of all household heads were 25 to 40 years and
only 22.1% were above 40 years.
115
Work Places
Almost all interviewees said that they were
employed in Nairobi. However, there were a few isolated
cases where some worked outside Nairobi. In Buruburu,
there was one interviewee who worked in Thika. Since he
has an owner-occupeier, he chose to commute daily to his
place of work owing to reasons which he gave as not wanting
to move his entire family because he preferred his children
going to school in Nairobi. In addition, his wife was
employed in Nairobi, thus the interviewee felt that it is
easier or more convenient for him to commute daily from
Nairobi to Thika as opposed to his wife having to travel
daily from Thika to Nairobi and back.
In Umoja there was a case where the household head
worked in Mombasa. Owing to the distance between Nairobi
and Mombasa, he had had to reside there while his wife and
children live in Nairobi. The reasons which the wife (who
was the interviewee) gave were similar to those given in
the Buruburu case, namely, children's education, wife's
employment and in addition they felt that it would be unwise
to leave their house in Umoja to a tenant who they felt would
not maintain their house the same way as they did.
Finally, there were two cases in Riruta Satelite
of heads of households who worked in Kiambu. Both of them
commute daily to their places of work and they felt that the
116
distance between Nairobi and Kiambu was not long enough to
warrant moving their families. In addition, both of them
owned plots on which their respective families practised
subsistence farming. Thus they felt there were too many
benefits they derived from owner-occupation of their plots
which they would not forego just to be close to their work
places.
In no other case study was there an interviewee
or household head working outside Nairobi. They all worked
in different areas of Nairobi but mainly within the City
Centre, Industrial Area, Hurlingham and Westlands.
Education Levels
All the interviewees encountered had some level of
formal education. However, this ranged from primary education
as was the case with majority of interviewees in areas such
as Kibera and Kawangware through to University Education as
was common in Lavington, Kilimani and Parklands as well as
most other areas.
While Kawangware and Kibera which are basically
squatter settlements had almost all the interviewees having
primary school education, few having secondary school
education and hardly any having college education, most other%
areas had education levels being well distributed among the
117
interviewees. In all the other areas only Riruta Satelite
had cases of interviewees having only primary school
education. On the other hand, postgraduate level of
education cases were very few with the exception of
Lavington and Plainsview Estates, both of which had 5 cases
of each. It was also observed that those interviewees who
had postgraduate education in Plainsview were almost all
owner-occupiers.
Tables 4.12 and 4.13 show the distribution of
education levels within the study area.
Table 4.12 Level of Education Among Interviewees
Area PrimaryEducation
SecondaryLevel
College Univ. Post.Grad,
Lavington - - 4 11 5
Kilimani - - 8 9 3
Parklands - - 9 9 2Eastleigh - 8 10 2 -Buruburu - 5 9 16 -Umo ja - 9 14 7 -Otiende - 5 12 3 —Kibera 11 7 2 - -Plainsview - 2 * 5 8 5Satelite 2 10 4 4 -Kawangware 14 6
'
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
118
Table 4.13 Education Levels in Percentages
Area PrimaryEducation Level (%)
Secondary College Univ. Post.Grad
Lavington 0 0 20 55 25Kilimani 0 0 40 45 15Parklands 0 0 45 45 10Kibera 55 35 10 0 0Plainsview 0 10 25 40 25Satelite 10 50 20 20 0Kawangware 70 30 0 0 0Eastliegh 0 40 50 10 0Buruburu 0 17 30 53 0Umo ja 0 30 47 23 0Otiende 0 25 60 15 0
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
It can be observed from the above tables that while
some study areas had nobody in certain levels of education,
other areas had more than half of the household heads
interviewed in certain levels of education. Lavington had
more than half of the interviewees having University education,
in fact 55% of all interviewees fell in this group while the
remainder was divided between college and postgraduate levels
at 20% and 25% respectively. The incidences of high education
levels is commensurate with the high socio-economic levels
that are prevalent in Nairobi's prime areas.
119
In Kilimani, College and University levels had
almost equal proportions of interviewees being 40% and 45%
respectively and the remaining 15% falling within post
graduate level. In both these areas as well as Parklands
which had 45% each of College and University levels and
10% in postgraduate level, there were no interviewees with
either primary or secondary levels of education. Eastleigh
had half the interviewees 50% being of College level, 40%
in Secondary and remaing 10% having University level of
education. Buruburu had the highest proportion, that is
53% having University education; there were none in primary
level nor postgraduate level.
In Umoja, the highest proportion was 47% in
College level while like Buruburu, there were none in the
primary and postgraduate levels. Otiende too, had no
interviewees in these two categories and had the highest
overall (60%) in College level of education. Kibera had
more than half the interviewees, 55% in the primary level,
only 10% in College level and none in University or Post
graduate level.
Plainsview had one of the highest proportion of
interviewees falling in the postgraduate level 25%. However,
its highest proportion 40% was in University level and it had%
none in primary level.
1 2 0
In Satelite, half of the interviewees had secondary
level of education 50% while the rest was divided among
primary, college and university levels and none in postgraduate level.
Finally, Kawangware recorded the highest percentage
of interviewees in one level, that was 70% in primary level.
This was the highest proportion obtained in any education
level; the remaining 30% was in secondary level. There were
none in any other level.
Table 4.14 Distribution of Education Levels AmongInterviewees
Education Level Total No. Found Percentage
Primary Level 27 11
Secondary Level 52 22
College Level 77 32
University Level 69 29
Postgraduate Level 15 6
Total 240_______ !_____________
100
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
1 2 1
Table 4.14 reveals that majority of household
heads in the study areas had college level of education
which accounted for 32% of all the household heads out of
all the household heads; 29% had University education
(first degree) and 22% had secondary school education.
This table also reveals that out of all the household
heads in the study area 89% of them had at least secondary
school education and above and only 11% had education below
secondary school level. Those with education below secondary
school were however found in only three study areas namely
Kibera, Satelite (Riruta) and Kawangware at the rate of 55%,
10% and 70% of the household heads interviewed respectively.
On the other hand, those household heads with postgraduate
education were found in four (4) study areas namely Lavington, Kilimani, Parklands and Plainsview at the rate of
25%, 15%, 10% and 25% of the household heads interviewed in
those areas respectively.
In respect to education levels in case studies, it
was found that if the study areas were to be divided into
socio-economic status whereby Lavington, Kilimani and
Parklands fall under high; Plainsview under upper middle;
Buruburu, Otiende and Umoja under middle; Riruta Satelite
under lower middle; and Kibera and Kiwangware under low. It
can be observed that educatioh levels correspond with the
socio-economic status of households. Households whose heads
1 2 2
have the highest level of education were to be found in the
high socio-economic group etc.
Income Levels
Income is a major factor in a household's ability
to buy or rent a house the quantity and quality of housing
a household will find and be able to occupy.
The population in the case studies composed of
households with varying levels of income thus their
occupation of different areas demanding different rents and
house prices. However, it was noted that most interviewees
were reluctant to reveal their income levels and even where
the interviewer felt that the interviewee must be earning
much more than 10,000/- p.m. probably twice, interviewees
in this category adamantly refused to reveal the specific
figures and the only answer obtained was 'over 10,000/-'
which was adopted to classifying those interviewees earning
any amount more than 10,000/- p.m. due to the said reluctance.
However, most interviewees earning less than this amount,
especially those in the very low income brackets as was the case in Kibera and Kawangware had no problems responding to
the question of income; in fact they did so readily.
Income BracketArea
10-1000
21001-1000
32001-2000
43001-4000
54001-5000
65001-6000
76001-7000
87001-8000
98001-9000
109001-10000
11Over10000
Lavington - - - - - - 1 1 1 - 17Kilimani - - - 1 - - 2 1 2 1 1 3Parklands - - - - 1 - - 1 1 - 17Eastleigh - - - - - 4 7 5 3 - 1Buruburu - - - - , 2 3 2 4 2 5 12Umo ja - - - - 3 5 7 7 8 - -Otiende - - - - - - 5 6 4 3 2Kibera 10 6 2 1 1 - - - - - -Plainsview - - - - - - - 1 4 7 8
Satelite - - 2 3 4 - 5 3 1 1 *1Kawangware 8 9 3 - - - - - - -
-
Source: Field Survey
Table 4.15 Income levels in case studies
123
124
Table 4.16 Income levels in Percentages
Area 1 2 3 4Income 5 6
Bracket7
(1-8
1)9 10 11
Lavington 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 5 0 85Kilimani 0 0 0 5 0 0 10 5 10 5 6 5
Parklands 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 85
Eastleigh 0 0 0 0 0 25 35 25 15 - 5
Buruburu 0 0 0 0 67 10 67 13 67 17 40
Umo ja 0 0 0 0 10 17 23 23 27 -
Otiende 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 30 20 15 10
Kibera 50 30 10 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plainsview 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 20 35 40
Satelite 0 0 10 15 20 0 25 15 5 5 5
Kawangware 40 45 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Field Survey
The economic status of the dwellers of each of
these study areas is apparent by a glance at the above
tables. Almost the entire proportion of households
interviewed in Lavington had a monthly income falling in the
highest income bracket i.e. 10/000/- per month. This
income bracket (11) covered 85% of the total population%
sampled in Lavington, the remaining 15% were divided
equally between brackets 7, 8 and 9 at 5% each. In
125
Kilimani and Parklands, the highest proportions also
fell in the highest income bracket (11) at 65% and 85%
respectively. The lowest income bracket for these two areas
were 4 and 5 respectively. However, in Kilimani, 95% of
the household heads sampled had income of over 6,000/- p.m.
while 95% of those in Parklands had income of over 7,000/- p.m.
The remaining 5% in Parklands had income between 4,000 -
5,000/- p.m. In Eastleigh 95% of the households surveyed
had a monthly income of between 5,000/- and 9,000/- p.m.
and the remaining 5% had income of over 10,000/- p.m. In
Buruburu, the highest proportion in any single income bracket
was 40% which had a monthly income of over 10,000/-, the
remaining 60% was distributed among households v/ith between
4,000/- to 10,000/- p.m. income. In Umoja, the entire
population sampled had income falling between 4,001/- p.m.
and 9,000/- p.m. In Otiende, the households with the least
monthly income were those in the 6,001 - 7,000/- p.m. income
bracket. 10% of the households sampled in this area had
income of over 10,000/- p.m.
Half of the households sampled in Kibera had income
falling in the lowest income bracket, that is, 0-1000/- p.m.
30% fell in the second income bracket i.e. 1001 - 2000/- p.m.
while the remaining 20% had income ranging from 2,001 to 5,000/-
p.m. Kawangware had an income distribution similar to that of
Kibera in that 85% of the household sampled had income of
126
between 0 and 2,000/- p.m. while the remaining 15% were in
the income bracket 2,001 - 3,000/- p.m. In other words,
no household sampled in Kawangware had income of over
3,000/- p.m. In Plainsview, the lowest income was in the
income bracket of 7,000 - 8,000/- p.m.. This bracket
represented only 5% of the households sampled while the
remaining 95% had income of over 8,000/- p.m. with 40% of
them having income of over 10,000/- p.m. In Riruta Satelite,
95% of the households sampled had income of between 2,001/-
p.m. to 10,000/- p.m. where the remaining 5% had income of over 10,000/- p.m.
However, these figures represent the monthly
income of the household heads. However, in majority of the
study areas, most households had both the wife and husband
working. Lavington, Kilimani and Parklands each had 15% of
the households belonging to single people; in the remaining
85% of the households, there were working wives thus house
hold incomes in all these cases were raised to over '10,000/-'
p.m. as earlier mentioned. Almost all the households
declined to specify income of over 10,000/- p.m.
In Eastleigh, 25% of the households were single;
30% had housewives i.e. non-working wives and the remaining%
45% households had working wives who increased the monthly
family income to 8,000/- p.m. and above. In Buruburu, 17%
127
of the households were single; 15% had non-working wives;
the remaining 68% had working wives who raised the family
income to 9,000/- p.m. and above. In Umoja, 30% of the
households had non-working wives, the remaining 70% who
were working raised their family incomes to a minimum of
7,000/- p.m. In Otiende, and Plainsview, all the households
sampled had working wives and the minimum family income in
these areas was 8,000/- p.m. and 9,000/- p.m. respectively.
None of the households in Kibera and Kawangware had
working wives; thus their income remained unchanged. In
Riruta Satelite, 40% of the households had working wives who
raised the family incomes to a minimum of 6,000/- p.m.
Racial/Ethnic Backgrounds
Most households sampled in the case studies
revealed Africans of various ethnic backgrounds being
almost evenly distributed. These ethnic groups included
Kikuyus, Luos, Luhias, Kambas, Merus, Kalenjins, Kisiis,
Embus, Taitas, etc.
However, households of non-African origin were
only found in certain case studies. For example, house
holds of European origin were only encountered in Lavington
and Kilimani while those of Asian origin were mainly
concentrated in Parklands areas.
128
Even among Africans, there were cases where
certain groups were found in specific areas. For example,
while Boranas were mainly concentrated in Eastleigh
constituting about 35% of households sampled; about 35% of
households sampled Nubis were concentrated in Kibera
constituting about 30% of the households sampled. It was
also noted that households belonging to those two ethnic
groups tended to be close to each other.
It was also observed that some areas lacked or had
very few households belonging to certain ethnic groups. For
example, although Kikuyu is the majority ethnic group in
Kenya, only one out of the 20 households sampled in Kibera
were Kikuyu. This represents only 5% of the households
sampled in that area compared to the 60% comprising of
Nubis and Luos (30% each) in the area.
It was observed that Whites were only found i-n
Lavington and Kilimani and not in any of the other areas.
These two areas are mainly occupied by elite Africans owing
to the high rents and house prices prevailing in these areas.
This is especially so in Lavington where rents go up to over 30,000/- p.m. Lavington has got prescribed minimum plot
size being 3/4 acre and in Kilimani minimum plot sizes are
% acre or 1/4 acre when sewered. They are both allowed
ground coverage of 33-j%. Residents of Asian origin were
Area Kikuyu Luo Luhyia MaasaiRace/Ethnic
Kamba KalenjinGroup
Meru Kisii Taita Embu Borana Nubi Whites Asian
Lavington 5 2 2 - 2 1 1 1 - 1 - - 4 1Kilimani 7 2 2 - 2 2 2 1 - - - 2 -
Parklands 3 3 2 - 3 - - - 1 - - 8Eastleigh 6 1 1 - - - 2 2 - 7 - -
Buruburu 10 9 2 - 5 - 1 3 - - - - -
Umo j a 14 4 1 1 2 - 2 1 4 - 1 - -
Otiende 6 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 - - -
Kibera 1 6 3 - 2 - - - - 2 6 -
Plainsview 5 5 2 - 2 2 2 1 1 - - -
Satelite 12 2 2 - - 2 1 1 - 1 - - -
Kawangware 3 4 1 1 1 - 1 - - 6 3 -
Source: Field SurveyTable 4.17 Distribution of race/ethnic groups in case studies
129
Area „.,Kikuyu Luo Luhyia Nhasai KambaRace/Ethnic
Kalenjin Meru KisiiGroupTaita Embu Borana Nubi Whites Asian
Lavington 25 10 10 0 10 5 5 5 0 5 0 0 20 5Kilimani 35 10 10 0 10 10 10 5 0 0 0 0 10 0Parklands 15 15 10 0 15 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 40Eastleigh 30 5 5 0 0 0 10 5 10 0 35 0 0 0Buruburu 33.3 30 6.7 0 16.7 0 3.3 10 0 0 0 0 0 0Umo ja 47.7 13. 3 3.3 3.3 6.7 0 6.7 3.3 13.3 0 3.3 0 0 0Otiende 30 15 10 5 10 10 5 0 10 5 0 0 0 0Kibera 5 35 15 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 30 0 0Plainsview 25 25 10 0 10 10 10 0 5 5 0 0 0 0Satelite 60 10 5 0 0 10 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0Kawangware 15 20 5 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 30 15 0 0
Source: Field Survey
T a b l e 4 . 1 8 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f e t h n i c g r o u p s / r a c e s i n p e r c e n t a g e s
\
131
mainly to be found in Parklands area whose minimum plot
sizes and ground coverage is similar to that of Kilimani.
These plot sizes can be compared to those of other areas
e.g. Buruburu and Umoja both of which have minimum plot
sizes being 2‘jjth °f an acre. In unplanned settlements such as in Kibera and Kawangware, each owners plot is just
that which is occupied by his house, which is normally a room or two.
Residential Mobility
The study of residential mobility started by
finding out the duration of time that each of the households
surveyed had lived in Nairobi. The results are given in the
two tables below.
These preceeding tables reveal that 70% of the
households surveyed in Lavington had been in Nairobi for less
than 16years while the remaining 30% had been in Nairobi for
periods ranging between 16 - 30 years. None of the households
studied in Lavington had lived in Nairobi for more than
30 years.
In Kilimani, 80% of the households studies had lived
in Nairobi for durations of between 1-20 years. Only 20%
had lived in Nairobi for periods ranging between 21-30 years
and none had lived in Nairobi for more than 30 years.
132
Table 4.19 Duration lived in Nairobi (in years)
Area 1-5 6-10 11-15 15-20 21-25 25-30 over 30
Lavington 4 6 4 3 2 1 -
Kilimani 4 5 4 3 1 3 -
Parklands 1 4 4 1 - 4 6
Eastleigh 1 4 5 4 2 3 1
Buruburu 6 7 9 2 2 1 3
Umo ja 1 15 10 4 - - -
Otiende 4 5 3 3 3 2 -
Kibera 2 6 5 5 2 - -
Plainsview 2 3 6 4 1 2 2
Satelite 6 4 3 3 - 2 2
Kawangware 6 5 1 1 1 1 5
Source: Field Survey
Table 4.20 Duration lived in Nairobi in Years in Percentages
Area 1-5 6-10 11-15Years
15-20 21-25 25-30 over 30
Lavington 20 30 20 15 10 5 0Kilimani 20 25 20 15 5 15 0Parklands 5 20 20 5 0 20 0Eastleigh 5 20 25 20 10 15 5Buruburu 20 23 30 7 7 3 10Umo ja 3 50 33 13 0 0 0Otiende 20 25 14 15 15 10 0Kibera 10 30 25 25 10 0 0Plainsview 10 15 30 20 5 10 10Satelite 30 20 15 15 - 10 10
in 96 5 5 5 5 25
133
In Parklands, half of the households studied had
lived in Nairobi for periods ranging between 1 - 2 0 years
while the remaining half (50%) had lived for periods ranging
from 20 to over 30 years. Parklands had the highest incident
of households who had lived in Nairobi for over 30 years
(30%) .
In Eastleigh, 65% fell in the ranges of between
6 - 2 0 years while the remaining 35% fell in the other
ranges with only 1 household (5%) having lived in Nairobi
for over 30 years.
In Buruburu, over 70% of the surveyed households
had lived in Nairobi for periods of upto 15 years only with
only the remaining less than 30% having lived in Nairobi for
longer periods. This included the 10% who had lived in
Nairobi for over 30 years.
Umoja had the highest percentage of households
falling in one duration range that of 6 - 1 0 years which
had 50% of the households surveyed in that area. However,
the entire population studied had lived in Nairobi for
periods of not more than 20 years.
Otiende had an almost even distribution of its
population among the duration ranges; the highest being
the 6-10 years range with none of the households having
resided in Nairobi for over 30 years.
134
In Kibera, 80% of the population studied had
resided in Nairobi for periods ranging between 6 - 2 0 years
and had none of the households exceeding the 25 years
duration.
Plainsview, Riruta and Kawangware had 30% being the
highest incident of duration lived within the 11-15, 1-5 and
1-5 years ranges respectively. Plainsview and Riruta
Satelite each had 10% of the households surveyed having
lived in Nairobi for over 30 years while Kawangware had 25%
of the household surveyed falling in that category.
The total number of moves (change of residence) made
by the households sampled in the study were analysed and
this showed that the mean number of moves was 3 per household. For the purpose of this study, therefore, for each
case study, only 3 moves will be considered for each house
hold. Where a household had had more than 3 moves, only the
last three (before the current residence) are considered.
There were cases where households had not changed or moved
from their first house or had only had one move. However,
this was observed mainly in young households or where the
household had been in Nairobi for a relatively short period
of time.
The table below shows the number of moves made by
each household in each case study in relation to the duration
of time lived in Nairobi.
135
Table 4.21 Number of moves made by each household
in each case study
Lavington
Kilimani
Parklands
Eastleigh
Buruburu
Umo ja
Otiende
Kibera
Plainsview
Satelite
Kawangware
>ves No. of households %age Time range lived
in Nairobi (years)
0 6 30 3 - 81 4 20 6 - 2 02 6 20 10 - 253 4 20 15 - 250 1 5 31 9 45 3 - 1 43 3 15 10 - 300 0 0 01 7 35 4 - 3 02 10 50 6 - 4 03 3 15 12 - 400 1 5 41 13 65 6 - 2 52 4 20 12 - 283 2 10 28 & 350 0 0 01 9 30 5 - 3 02 12 40 5 - 3 03 9 30 3 - 3 00 1 3 61 13 43 6 - 1 5 .2 16 53 5 - 2 03 0 0 00 4 20 4 - 1 01 8 40 5 - 2 02 7 35 10 - 253 1 5 250 5 25 2 - 1 51 12 60 6 - 2 42 3 15 14 - 213 0 0 00 2 10 4 - 51 * 8 40 6 - 1 82 9 45 15 - 303 1 5 360 6 30 1 - 30 +1 10 50 5 - 3 02 4 20 2 - 2 03 0 0 00 5 25 1 - 4 01 15 75 3 - 50 +
136
A number of observations can be made from the above
table. Case studies whose occupiers are largely high income
earners had higher mobility rates. These areas include
Lavington, Kilimani and Parklands which had 85%, 80% and 85%
of the households sampled having had at least two moves
respectively. High mobility rates were also present in low
middle to upper middle income areas with Eastleigh, Buruburu,
Umoja and Otiende having 85%, 70%, 100% and 95% of their
occupiers (respectively) having had at least 2 moves.
Plainsview which is a middle to upper middle income housing
estate had 95% of its interviewees having made 2 moves.
Interviewees in very low to low income areas had
made relatively fewer moves. Out of those interviewed in
Kibera, 85% had made only one or no moves; the entire
population interviewed in Kawangware had made only one or
no move at all. The reasons for these variations in
mobility with respect to income groups will be looked at in
the analysis for reasons accounting for residential mobility.
It was also observed that in the high income
residential case studies, there was a direct relationship
between the period of time that a household had lived in
Nairobi and the number of moves made, notably, in these
areas, households who had made one or no move had lived in
Nairobi for relatively shorter periods of time compared to3
137
those that had made 2 or more moves. However, this incident
was different in lower income residential case studies where
it was observed that the period of time lived in Nairobi had
no bearing on the number of moves that households had made.
In Kawangware, a very low income residential area, despite
the fact that the entire population sampled had lived in
Nairobi for periods of upto and above 50 years, 75% of this
sample had made only one move and the remaining 2 5% had made
no move at all. This incident was also repeated in Kibera
and to a smaller extent in Riruta Satelite where very few
moves had been made irrespective of the periods lived in Nairobi. Low income residential areas were, therefore,
observed to have lower mobility rates notwithstanding the
length of time that households had lived in Nairobi.
Cases of third moves were observed mainly in middle
and high income areas; the highest incident being in
Buruburu 30% and the high income areas of Lavington, Kilimani
and Parklands having 20%, 15% and 15% respectively.
Incidences of third moves were insignificantly low in
Eastleigh, Otiende, and Plainsview while they were altogether
absent in Umoja, Kibera, Riruta Satelite and Kawangware.
Reasons fdr Mobility
In the analysis of why households moved from one
house or area to another, the households that were occupying
138
their first house since moving to Nairobi, that is, those
that had not changed residences were left out. This is for
the obvious reasons that the factors accounting for
residential mobility, which constitute an important aspect
of this study were not applicable to them. However, these
households will be examined at a later section when reasons
for occupying current dwellings are analysed.
In analysing residential mobility, the study has
considered each movement made by each household so as to
take into account any peculiarity in the housing conditions
such as area lived in, type of house occupied, rent paid and
tenure type as well as the reasons given for moving v/ith
respect to each movement made. The data collected was
therefore analysed with respect to the first, second and
third house occupied as the case might be before moving into
current house. Reasons for moving into current houses/
dwellings will be analysed separately.
The purpose of this part of the study was to examine
the importance of various factors such as marriage, jobs,
home ownership and improvement of living conditions as
determinants of housing choice for residents of each of the
case studies.A
In Lavington, 14 out of the 20 households sampled
had moved at least once. There was no similarity with
139
respect to the localities that these households had lived
in before. In fact, none of the households studied had
lived in a similar area with another. With respect to the
first houses occupied by those who had made at least one
move in Lavington case study, no particular house type
stood out as dominant, as many households had occupied semi
detached bungalows as had occupied flats with each of these
house types having three households while as many households
had occupied detached bungalows as had occupied maisonnettes.
In Kilimani, 10 out of the 20 households sampled
i.e. 95% had moved at least once since coming to Nairobi.
It was noted that households had previously occupied houses
located in middle to high income areas. The dominant house
type occupied by these households was maisonnettes which
accounted for 45% of all the first houses occupied.
In Parklands, all the households interviewed had
moved at least once since coming to Nairobi. It was observed
that a large number of these households had lived in the
Eastleigh area in such estates as Ngara, Pangani and
Eastleigh. The number of households who had lived in theseareas accounted for 40% of all households interviewed and
semi-detached bungalows being the dominant house type in
previous houses and accounting for 60% of the house types%
occupied.
140
In Eastleigh, 19 out of the 20 households inter
viewed had occupied previous houses. It was noted that like
Parklands, many of these households had also lived in nearby
areas such as Ngara and Pangani. This incidence accounts
for 50% of the areas previously occupied. However, no
dominant house type was observed in these previous
occupancies.
In Buruburu, all the households interviewed had
moved at least once since coming to Nairobi. There was
however no dominance in either the areas nor housetypes
previously occupied.
In Umoja, 97% of the households interviewed had
moved at least once. It was observed that the first moves
were generally from other low income residential areas.
There were three cases of households who had previously
occupied single rooms; otherise there was no dominant house
type.
In Otiende, 80% of the households had moved at
least once. These first moves were observed to have been from mainly middle income residential areas with mixed
house types.
In Kibera where 75% 'of the households had moved at
least once, it was observed that the first moves had been
mainly from other very low income areas. It was also
141
Also observed that these other areas had been
relatively further away from the city compared to Kibera.
All the house types previously occupied had been single rooms.
In Plainsview, 90% of the households had moved at
least once. It was observed that they had moved mainly from
middle income areas with mixed house types.
In Riruta Satelite, 70% of the households had moved
from their first houses. In this area, it was observed that
these households had moved from other peri-urban areas such
as Kikuyu, Dagoretii, Kabete, etc. Such cases accounted for
over 50% of the cases. There was no dominant house type in
previous houses occupied.
In Kawangware 75% of households had moved at least
once; out of these, in the same area. The rest had
previously lived in either peri-urban areas or other very
low income residential areas. Out of all previous houses
occupied, single rooms accounted for over 70% of house types.
Rents in First Houses
There was a wide disparity in rents paid for the
first houses occupied by interviewees. The reason for this
was mainly due to such factors as the households income level,
142
areas lived, size and state of house that had been occupied etc.
Table 4.22 Monthly Rents paid in First Houses
Area NoRent
Lessthan1000
1001to
2000
Rent/Month2001to
3000
(in 3001 to
4000
KShs.) 4001 to
5000
Over5000
Lavington 43% 7% 29% 0% 14% 0% 7%
Kilimani 42% 0% 42% 0% 0% 0% 16%
Parklands 75% 5% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Eastleigh 58% 5% 20% 16% 0% 0% 0%
Buruburu 30% 27% 37% 6% 0% 0% 0%
Umoja 34% 52% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Otiende 50% 0% 38% 12% 0% 0% 0%
Kibera 47% 53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Plainsview 42% 0% 21% 16% 5% 5% 11%
Satelite 6.6% 53% 13% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6% 6.6%
Kawangware 47% 53% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
143
From the above table, it can be observed that in
most of the case studies, majority of the households
interviewed had not paid any rent in the first houses
occupied. For almost all the households who had not paid
any rent in their first houses, these houses had belonged
to either their parents or they had lived with other
relatives hence non-payment of rent. Cases of non-payment
of rent being occasioned by the house being employer provided
were found in Buruburu, Otiende, Eastleigh, Plainsview,
Kilimani at the rate of 33%, 38%, 9%, 50% and 25% of those
who had not paid any rent respectively.
For all the households who had paid rent (tenants)
there were no cases of shared tenancies where households had
coupled up with other households hence shared the rents
between them. These cases were found in all the case studies.
It can be observed from the table that rents that
households had paid had been generally low, with few house
holds having paid over KShs.2,000/- per month for the first
houses that they had occupied. In very low income areas such
as Kibera and Kawangware, all the households had either paid
no rents in their previous houses or had paid rents much lower
than KShs.1,000/- per month.
144
In the first houses that interviewees had
occupied, there were hardly any cases of rents exceeding
KShs.3,000/- per month. Such cases were only found by
residents living in Lavington: 21%, Kilimani: 16%,
Umoja: 4%, Plainsview: 21%, and Riruta Satelite: 20%.
Reasons for Mobility (1)
Various factors were given as accounting or being responsible for households having moved from their
first houses.
The table in the next page lists these factors
as well as their rate of occurence in each case study.
It should be noted here that the factors are given as
a percentage of the number of households who gave them
as reasons for moving with respect to the number of house
holds who had moved from their first houses in each case
study.
It was observed that there was variation in
reasons for movement from first houses that households
had occupied. However, only a few of these reasons were
important in their role as movement stimulants, namely
these reasons are marriage, home ownership, independence,%
job changes and size of houses.
IndependencechangeMarriage 0 f
employmentparentsmoved
bought/build.house"-
smallhouse
dislikeneighbour- Distance hood
Highrent Divorce Security
Lavington 43 14 7 0 14 14 0 7 0 0 0Kilimani 16 16 21 0 10 10 16 10 0 0 0Parklands 35 20 5 15 15 5 5 0 0 0 0Eastleigh 26 26 5 0 11 26 0 5 0 0 0Buruburu 13 13 17 0 3 47 0 3 3 0 0Umo ja 10 31 0 0 27 17 3 3 6 3 0Otiende 12.5 37 25 0 12.5 0 0 12.5 0 0 0Kibera 27 0 7 0 40 ‘ 13 0 13 0 0 0Plainsview 17 17 33 0 11 5 - 5 11 - -Satelite 7 - - - 43 7 14 21 7 0 -Kawangware 27 0 0 0 46 0 0 20 0 0 7
Source: Field Survey
Table 4.23 Reasons for first moves
146
Independence was responsible for majority of
movements from first houses by residents of Lavington,
Parklands and Eastleigh having accounted for 43%, 35% and
26% of all movement from first houses respectively. In all
these cases of independence - related movements, the house
holds had been living with their parents, relatives, or
in shared rental houses. By independence, they referred
to freedom that goes along with living on ones own.
Marriage was the other important reason given as
having stimulated movement from first houses. It was the
most prominent reason for movement from first houses for
households now living in Otiende, Umoja, and Eastleigh
having accounted for 37%, 31% and 26% in these case studies
respectively. Where movement had been stimulated by
marriage, the affected households had been like in the case for independence-related movements,living with parents,
relatives or sharing rented houses prior to the marriage.
In some cases, they had been living in houses that they
felt were too small to accommodate an enlarged family;
in either case, there was need to move out upon marriage.
Home ownership was also of overwhelming importance
as a reason for movement from first houses. In all but one
case study, home ownership accounted for at least over 10%
of the reasons given for first movements. This factor was
147
similar in importance to independence which had contributed to first movements of households in all the case studies. Home ownership was the most important factor stimulating
first movements for households now living in Kibera, Rirut t
Satelite and Kawangware having accounted for 40%, 43* and 46% of first movements in these case studies respectively.
In Umoja area, it was a close second to marriage having accounted for 2 7% of these movements compared to 31* movements stimulated by marriage.
It was observed that in Kibera, Riruta Satelit: *
and Kawangware where home ownership had been the factor
responsible for movements from first houses, these homo*? had been acquired through construction of individual hou:»<*.»
in contrast to most other areas where homes had been
acquired through purchasing of already built houses.
While size of house had contributed to the hi jhest number of movements from first houses for househol ... living in Buruburu, this factor (small house) had equalled
independence and marriage in importance as mobility for Eastleigh households each having accounted for 26% of
movements from first houses. However, in Buru study, small houses had accounted for an overwhelming 47%Of movements from houses first occupied by interviewee..
148
Job-related movements from first houses occupied
by interviewees in Kilimani and Plainsview case studies
were of importance. In both of these areas, change of job
had occasioned the highest number of movements from their first houses; 21% of households in Plainsview areas had
moved from their first houses for job-related reasons.
These reasons involved cases where a household head moved
from a job where the employer had provided housing hence
he/she had to vacate the house on terminating employment
with that employer. On the other hand, there were cases
where household heads obtained jobs where employer housing
was provided hence movement into that house. There were
also cases where household heads had moved from one
employer provided house to another upon change of jobs.
The above analysis is only of factors that had
been dominant in stimulation of movements from houses that
interviewees had occupied upon coming to Nairobi. However,
there were other reasons which though insignificant with
respect to the number of movements that they had stimulated
had all the same played a role in residential mobility with
respect to these first houses occupied.
The most important of these less significant
mobility factors had stimulated movements in small numbers,
the highest being 21% of households now living in Riruta
149
Satelite. It had however acted as a movement stimulant in
all but one case study i.e. Parklands. Though few in
numbers, all these households had moved from their first houses because of having to travel long distances to places of employment.
Movement due to dislike of neighbourhood in first
houses had occurred in 4 out of the 11 areas studied.
Though this factor had stimulated a negligible 5 and 3% of
movements for households now in Parklands and Umoja
respectively, it had stimulated a significant 16% and 141
of movements for households now in Kilimani and Riruta
Satelite respectively.
In another 4 out of the 11 areas studied, an
insignificant low number of households had moved out
of their first houses due to the high rent that had been
demanded.
Divorce and security reasons had caused movements
from first houses for households in Umoja and Kawang.vare at
the rate of 3 and 7% respectively.
From this analysis of reasons that stimulated
respondents to move out of their first houses the hypothesis%of the study is partly confirmed, that other social and
economic factors besides place of work and affordability
150
influence the choice of residential area in Nairobi. In
this analysis the social factor of independence comes out
as a reason not for choice of residential area but as a
stimulant for mobility. Marriage and home ownership also
play important roles in stimulating residential mobility.
The role played by distance to place of work in residential
mobility is insignificant. However, home ownership which
is an indicator of affordability plays an important role
in stimulating movement. However, its role is not as
significant as that played by independence and marriage.
Although home ownership is important, there are other more important factors.
Second Houses Occupied and Moved Out of:
Out of the households studied in Lavington case
study, 10 of them had occupied and moved out of their second
house since coming to Nairobi, that is, 10 households had
moved at least twice. The areas that these households had
lived in after moving from their first houses were as varied
as those occupied in the first houses, that is, there was
no similarity with respect to the areas that these households
had moved into. Like in first houses occupied, no housetype
was overwhelmingly dominant, however, 40% of these households
had moved into maisonnettes while the rest had moved into
flats, semi-detached bungalows and single room at the ratio
of 3:2:1 or 30%, 20% and 10% respectively.
151
In Kilimani, there were also 10 households who
had occupied and moved out of their second houses since
coming to Nairobi. These second houses had been mainly
in middle income areas such as Nairobi South, Nairobi West,
Buruburu etc. Like in previous house types occupied by
these households, the dominant house type was maisonettes,
accounting for 60% of these second houses. The remaining
40% had been either flats or semi-detached bungalows
(20% of each).
65% of the households studied in Parklands had
occupied a second house. 30% of these households had had
their second houses located in the neighbouring Eastleigh-
Pangani area. The remaining 70% had been in various and
diverse parts of Nairobi but notably in middle income areas.
Over 50% of the house types had been maisonnettes.
Only 35% of households studied in Eastleigh had
occupied a second house. These houses had been in diverse
parts of Nairobi but notably low to middle income areas.
The house types had been either maisonnettes or flats at
the ratio of 4:3 or 57% and 43% respectively.
About 67% of households in Buruburu had moved
twice. The houses occupied showed the same characteristics
as those occupied in the first houses by showing no dominance
in either locality or house type.
152
In Umoja, the households who had moved out of
their second houses comprised 53% of the households studied.
It was observed that these second houses had almost all been
in low income areas with the exception of very few being in
lower middle income areas. Although there was no dominant
house type the previous incident of 3 households occupying
single rooms still prevailed.
Although only 40% of households studied in Otiende
had moved into and out of second houses, these second
houses were observed to have similar characteristics as
the first ones in that they had all been in middle income
areas and had no dominant house types.
Kibera had only 15% of the households studied
having occupied and moved out of a second house, like in
the previous first houses cases, these houses had been
located in very low income areas, in fact 2 of these 3
houses had been located in Kawangware while the remaining
one had been located in Mathare.
In Plainsview the number of these households who
had occupied at least a second house made up 55% of the
total number of households studied. The second houses had
been located in middle to upper income areas with over 90%
of the houses being maisonnettes and the remainder flats.
153
In Satelite those households that had occupied
a nd moved out of a second house comprised only 20% of the
households studied. These houses had been in diverse areas
with only one of them having been in the peri-urban area
of Kabete, the house types had been 50% maisonnettes and
50% semi-detached bungalows. Kawangware was the only case
study where none of the residents had moved twice.
Rents in 2nd Houses
Like was the case with the first houses occupied,
there was a wide disparity in the rents paid for the second houses occupied by interviewees.
Table 4.24 shows how many interviewees (in
percentages) in each case study had paid what rent for
their second houses.
Table 4.24 Monthly Rents Paid in Second Houses
Area NoRent
Less than or 1000
Rent/Month (KShs.)1001- 2001- 3001- 2000 3000 4000
4001-5000
Over5000
Lavington 0 10 50 30 10 0 0
Kilimani 10 10 40 30 10 0 0
Parklands 23 15 46 15 0 0 0
Eastleigh 14 14 57 14 0 0 0
Buruburu 10 10 70 5 0 0 0
Umoja 6 75 6 13 0 0 0
Otiende 25 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 0 0
Kibera 0 100 0 0 0 0 0
Plainsview 18 0 9 27 27 0 0o c n n 0
154
The most notable feature observable from Table 4-24 is that unlike in cases of the first houses occupied
t>y interviewees, cases of non-rent payment had either been
v e r y low or non-existent. Where there had been cases of
non-rent payment, this had been as a result of employer
provided housing as opposed to occupation of parents' or
relatives' houses as had been in the case with first houses.
There had been variations in rental patterns in
the second houses occupied by interviewees in different
case studies. In Lavington, the levels of rents that had
been paid for second houses occupied had not been as high
as in the first houses occupied. While in the first houses
three of the households sampled had paid rents of over
3,000/- p.m., in the second houses, there had been only one
case of household paying more than 3,000/- p.m. This owed
to the fact that two of the households who had paid high
rents in the first houses had bought their own houses. While
there had been no cases of rents having been very high in
second houses, the percentage of those who had paid rents
of between 1,000 - 3000/- p.m. had been 80% compared to 29%
in the first houses. This means that households had paid
more for their second houses than they had previously paid
in their first houses.
155
In Kilimani, 2nd houses rents had been relatively
higher than in first houses rents with 40% of interviewees
having paid rents between 2,000 - 4,000/- p.m. while in
first houses, 84% had paid rents of upto only 2,000/- p.m.
However, the 16% which had paid rents of over 5,000/- p.m.
for first house did not feature in second houses for reasons
of owner occupation, i.e. those who had paid rents of over
5,000/- p.m. for their first houses had moved into owner
occupied houses.
In Parklands, Eastleigh, Buruburu and Umoja case
studies, there had been like in all cases, a drastic
reduction, of non rent payment in second houses occupied
and the entire numbers of households had paid rents of not
more than 3,000/- p.m. with the exception of Buruburu where
5% had paid over 5,000/- p.m. for the second houses occupied.
Interviewees in Otiende case study had also paid
higher rents for 2nd houses occupied in that while there
had been 50% of interviewees falling in the 1,000 - 3,000/-
p.m. rent brackets, with 3,000/- p.m. being the highest rent
paid, 37.5% of those who had occupied and moved out of 2nd
houses had paid rents in the 3,000 - 4,000/- p.m. rent
bracket.%
In Kibera, all the households interviewed had paid
rents o f less than 1,000/- p.m. for their second houses; the
156
only difference exhibited in this case study with respect
to first and second houses occupied was the absence of nonrent payment in second houses.
Plainsview case study had the highest number of residents having paid more than 3,000/- p.m. for their
second houses, 45%. However, unlike with first houses
where 11% had paid rents of over 5,000/- p.m. no interviewees had paid over 5,000/- p.m. for second houses,
In Riruta Satelite, 72% of interviewees had paid
rents ranging between 2,000/- p.m. and 5,000/- p.m. for
their second houses compared to only 19.8% who had paid over
5,000/- p.m. for second houses as had been the case of 6.6%
in first houses.
Reasons for Mobility (11)
The reasons given by households for having moved out
of their second houses are shown in Table 4.25. Like was
the case with first houses that had been occupied by
interviewees, the reasons are given as a percentage of the
number of households who gave them as reasons for moving
with respect to the number of households who had moved from
their second houses in each case study..%
It was observed that the roles played by different
factors as stimulants of movements had changed in importance.
Area Independence Marriage
Changeo f
employment
bought/bu ilthouse
smallhouse
dislikeneighbourhood
distance highrent s e c u r ity o th e rs
Lavington 0 20 30 20 10 20 0 0 0 -
Kilimani 0 0 40 30 30 0 0 0 0 -
Parklands 8 23 15 31 0 8 15 0 0 0
Eastleigh 14 29 14 29 0 0 0 14 0 0Buruburu 5 10 5 20 35 5 5 10 0 5
Umo ja 0 31 6 31 25 6 0 0 0 0Otiende „ 0 12.5 37.5 37.5 0 12.5 0 0 0 0Kibera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 67 0
Plainsview 0 18 9 46 0 0 9 9 0 9
Satelite 0 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0
Table 4.25 Reasons for second movesSource: Field Survey
157
158 -
Independence which had accounted for a large number of
m o v e m e n t s from first houses had ceased being an important
stimulant of movements from second houses and had only stimulated
movem e n t s from second houses for residents of only 3 case
s t u d i e s namely Parklands, Eastleigh and Buruburu and a
v e r y low influence rate of 8, 14 and 5% respectively. This
w a s notably low considering that independence had been
responsible for movements from first houses for interviewees in all the case studies and at relatively higher rates.
U n l i k e in first houses where independence related movements
h a d involved moving out of parents/relatives houses,
independence related movements from second houses had
involved moving out of shared houses.
Marriage had remained an important stimulant of
movement even from second houses having stimulated movement
for interviewees in all but three of the study areas where
residents had occupied and moved out of second houses. The
highest number of movements from second houses influenced
by marriage had been 33% for households now living in
Plainsview Estate.
Unlike in movements from first houses where
marriage related movements had involved moving out of parents houses, as was the case in independence related
movements, for second houses had involved moving out of
shared houses with the exception of only 3 cases, 2 in
159
Parklands area and one in Plainsview Estate. Change of
employment was slightly more influential in second movements
than it was with first movements. It influenced the highest number of second moves for residents now living in
Lavington, Kilimani and Otiende at the rate of 30, 40
and 37.5% respectively. In all other areas where
interviewees had had at least two moves, change of
employment had influenced movements but at lower rates
only with the exception of Kibera and Riruta Satelite
where no residents had moved out of their second houses for
job related reasons. As was the case with first movements,
job-related movements involved moving out of jobs where
housing facilities had been provided or into jobs where
housing facilities were provided.
With respect to second movements, home ownership
had been the most important influencing or stimulating
factor. In 6 out of the 10 study areas where households
studied had moved from at least 2 houses, home ownership
had been the highest influencing factor with an influence rate of 31% in Parklands, 29% in Eastleigh, 31% in Umoja,
37.5% in Otiende, 46% in Plainsview and an overwhelming 75%
in Riruta Satelite. In the remaining 4 areas, home ownership
was the second most important influencing factor in all the
areas with the exception of Kibera, the only area where home
ownership had not influenced any second movements.
160
Households who had moved out of their second
houses due to inadequate space were found in Lavington 19%,
Kilimani 30%, Buruburu 35%, Umoja 25% and Riruta Satelite
25%. The influence of size of house as a mobility factor
with respect to second houses had been as important as had
been in first houses. However, apart from residents now in
these above mentioned areas, house sizes had not stimulated
movements in any of the other areas.
The less important mobility factors in second
houses had included dislike of neighbourhood which had
influenced only few movements in residents now livings in
Lavington, Parklands, Buruburu, Umoja and Otiende with
Lavington leading with only 20% and the others being
insignificantly low. Distance and high rent had stimulated
movements in 3 areas each and at very low rates except for
high rent which had been responsible for 33% of second
movements for sampled households now living in Kibera where
security reasons had been the most important mobility factor
accounting for 67% of second movements. However, in no
other study area had residents moved from second houses for
security reasons. 5% of households now living in Buruburu
and 9% of residents now living in Plainsview who had moved
at least twice had done so due to poor relationship with the
landlord.
161
Moves caused by reasons of parents moving or divorces did not feature with respect to second houses
occupied and moved out of by households studied.
Unlike in the first houses where there were several
incidents of occupation of parental houses, relatives houses
and shared tenancies, tenure type in second houses indicated
a trend towards independent household formation rather than
continuing within the parents', relatives or shared accommo
dation. Out of the 102 households studied who had at least
moved out of second houses, the tenure tupes in the second
houses had been 5% of the households living with parents/
relatives, 7% living in employer housing, 18% in shared
tenancies and the remaining 70% had occupied single-household
tenancies.
In the analysis for second moves, home ownership,
marriage and house sizes are the main reasons for the moves.
Distance to work also features as a mobility factor.
Although in these moves affordability (home ownership) and
distance to work are important mobility stimulants, their
importance does not over-ride other factors. This analysis
conforms the hypothesis which appreciates that distance to
work and affordability play a role in residential choices%
but also assets that other socio-economic factors also play
an important role.
162
Third Houses Occupied and Vacated
There were only a handful of the households studied
who had occupied and moved out of a 3rd house before moving
into where they were living at the time of the study. Out
of the eleven (11) case studies, 4 of them had no incidents
of households having occupied a 3rd house before the current
one. The areas that had had no incidents of 3rd moves are
Umoja, Kawangware (this area had had no 2nd moves either) ,
Kibera and Riruta Satelite.
Table 4.26 The Incidences of 3rd Moves as Percentages of
the Households Studied Had Been:
Area Percentage
Lavington 20
Kilimani 15
Parklands 15
Eastleigh 10
Buruburu 17
Otiende 5
Plainsview 5%
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
163
Although the locations of these 3rd houses had
been diverse, it was observed that households now living
in Lavington had had their 3rd houses located in other
high income residential areas such as Westlands and Upper Hill areas. For those households in Eastleigh, their 3rd
houses had been located in the same area, that is, they
had moved houses within the same area. For all these
households, maisonnettes had been the dominant house type
occupied in 3rd houses. Indeed, 80% of these 3rd houses
had been maisonnettes, with the remaining 20% being either
flats, semi-detached bungalow or servant quarter.
Table: 4.27 Rents in 3rd Houses
A r e a NoRent
Less or 1000 1000-2000 2001-3000 3001-4000
Lavington 25 0 0 25 50
Kilimani 23 0 67 0 0
Parklands 0 0 33 33 33
Eastleigh 0 0 100 0 0
Buruburu 0 20 60 0 20
Otiende 100 0 0 0 0
Plainsview 100 0 0 0 0
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
164
Incidents of non%rent payment were higher for 3rd houses occupied than had been with 2nd houses. All
cases of non-rent payment for 3rd houses had involved
employer provided housing. There had been only one case
of rent being below 1,000/- p.m. (in Buruburu). This had
involved occupation of a servant's quarter by a single
person household. Unlike in previous houses occupied,
there had been no incidents of rents exceeding 4,000/- p.m.
for 3rd houses that interviewees had occupied.
With respect to tenure types in 3rd houses, 21%
of the houses had been employer provided, 5% shared tenancy
and the remaining 74% single tenancies.
Reasons for Mobility (111)
There were only a few factors that had led to
households moving out of their 3rd houses. These factors
and their contribution as a percentage of all 3rd moves are
shown below.
Table 4.28 Reasons for 3rd Moves
Factor Contribution
Home Ownership 58%Change of Employment 26%Small House 5%Neighbourhood 11%
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
165
It was observed that most of the factors that had
stimulated 1st and 2nd moves had not influenced 3rd moves.
These factors include marriage, independence, distance, high
rents etc, even the roles played by size of house and poor
neighbourhood were very insignificant as stimulants of 3rd
moves. This factor could be explained by the fact that by
the time households made their 3rd moves, they were already
married and that during their first and second moves they
had moved into houses offering adequate accommodation and
located in what was appropriate neighbourhood to the
respective household.
Home ownership was the most influencing factor for
third moves. This could be explained by the fact that by
the time the household was ready to move a third time, they
were also financially ready to own a home and also that after
having moved twice before for other reasons, they had made
an appropriate choice of house hence movement could only be
occasioned by home ownership or job changes.
The main notable feature with respect to third
movements is that they had been experienced only by house
holds residing in middle to high income residential areas.
Households now living in Lavington, a high income residential
area, had had the highest incidents of 3rd moves, while very
low income areas such as Kawangware had no residents who had
166
experienced even 2nd moves.%
The analysis for third moves would tend to contradict
the hypothesis and give the impression that indeed, distance
to work and home ownership are the most important stimulants
of residential mobility. However, it must be noted that these
households in question have already moved twice before. They
have made two moves in responses to stimulants that did not
necessarily include distance to work or affordability.
Reasons for the first and second moves are the most important
in that they are basic. In addition, change of employment
implies increase in distance, total change of working area or
in some cases, surrender of employer provided housing. Hence
from this analysis, it can confidently be asserted that
distance to work and affordability are important but secondary
stimulants of mobility.
Current Houses
In order to find out what households value in their
housing, they were asked their reasons for moving into their
current houses. A number of reasons were put down from
which correspondents were required to note, in order of
preference, which ones had influenced them to move into
their current houses. It was observed that although
respondents were required to note all the reasons that had
led them to move into their houses, several households noted
167
only one reason. Even where an interviewee gave more than
one reason as having influenced them to move into that house,
they stressed that the first reason was the only one of
great importance and that the other one or two given were
only of secondary importance and were merely supporting but
not determining factors.
For the purpose of this study, only the first three
priorities given by households will be considered, it should
however be noted that only a few households gave upto 3
priorities and hardly any gave more than this number.
Table 4.29 shows which reasons were given as 1st,
2nd and 3rd priorities by households in each study area.
In order to paint a clear picture, the frequencies are given
as percentages of the total number of respondents who gave
one, two or three priorities respectively. The reasons
from which the households were required to choose from are
a) Close to work place
b) Close to children's schools
c) Close to hospitals
d) House is bigger
e) Rent is reasonablef) Neighbourhood is quiet
g) Neighbourhood is clean
h) Compound is large1) Others (respondent to specify).
168
Table 4.30 First Priority Reasons
A r e a a b c d
Reasons
e f g h i Total 100%
Lavington 5 0 0 20 0 35 15 0 25
Kilimani 0 15 0 45 0 5 5 0 30
Parklands 10 0 0 30 10 25 0 0 25
Eastleigh 25 0 0 40 20 0 0 0 15
Buruburu 10 3 0 40 30 0 0 0 14
Umoj a 3 7 0 50 23 0 0 0 17
Otiende 0 0 0 10 60 5 0 0 25
Kibera 5 0 0 10 60 0 0 0 25
Plainsview 50 5' 0 10 10 0 0 0 25
Satelite 20 5 0 20 20 15 0 0 20
Kawangware 0 0 0 10 55 0 0 0 35
Source: Own Field Survey
169
Table 4.31 Second Priorty Reasons%
Area ' a b cReasons
d e f 9 h i
Lavington 0 7 0 0 7 32 40 7 7Kilimani 6 6 0 6 6 70 6 0 0Parklands 6 12 0 12 12 31 25 0 0Eastleigh 8 15 0 15 53 8 0 0 0
Buruburu 17 4 0 17 33 13 4 8 4
Umo ja 0 15 0 15 38 31 0 0 0
Otiende 0 0 0 20 60 0 10 10 0
Kibera 86 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
Plainsview 20 40 0 13 20 7 0 0 0
Satelite 8 8 8 15 31 15 15 0 0
Kawangware 45 0 0 27 18 0 0 0 9
Source: Field Survey
Table 4.32 Third Priorty Reasons
ReasonsArea a b c d e f g h i
Lavington 8 0 0 8 0 25 25 8 25Kilimani 0 12 0 6 0 12 56 6 6Parklands 13 0 0 13 7 13 40 30 0Eastleigh 20 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40Buruburu 0 14 0 14 0 36 21 14 0Umo ja 0 0 0 0 33 33 0 0 33Otiende 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 71 0Kibera - - - - - - - - -Plainsview 9 9 0 9 0 36 9 0 27Satelite 0 0 0 43 14 14 0 0 29Kawangware 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Field Survey
170
The reasons given for housing choice can be divided into four broad categories namely:-
i) Dwelling: Under this category are suchi-actors as size of house, its types i.e. maisonnettes, flat etc, size of compound, internal amenities.
ii) Neighbourhood: This factor includes
cleanliness of neighbourhood, noise or lack of it,
amenities provided within the neighbourhood, security etc.
iii) Economic: This category covers the financial
or affordability factors e.g. of rent or price of house or
land on which to construct.
iv) Tenure: This is movement stimulated by change
of tenure e.g. from rental to owner occupied housing, from
rental to employer provided housing etc.
As earlier stated, the reasons given as firstt
priorities are of great importance in their role as housing
choice determinants. With respect to these first priority
factors, it is clear from the table that factors related
to the dwelling and economic factors played the greater
role .
In all but one of the areas studied, a single
reason dominated the factors that affected housing choice
of most households, i.e. one single - factor influencing more
171
households in housing choice than any of the other factors
given. However, in almost half of the areas studied, the
greatest number of households studied gave size of house as
having influenced them more than any other factors to move
into that house, in areas such as Kilimani, Eastleigh,
Buruburu and Umoja, bigger house sizes had influenced below
40-50% of movements into the houses occupied by respondents.
In another 4 out of the 11 areas studied, economic factors
such as affordable rents, prices of houses or land had been
the greatest determinants of housing choice. In areas such
as Otiende, Kibera and Kawangware, economic reasons had
influenced more than 50% of movements into current houses.
Lavington and Plainsview case studies are the only
ones which exhibited unique characteristics with respect
to dominant reasons of housing choice. In Lavington, the
highest percentage (50%) had chosen their houses due to
neighbourhood reasons, i.e. because the neighbourhood was
quiet and clean while in Plainsview 50% of respondents had
moved into their houses because of their houses' closeness
to their work places.
In all the areas studied, no household had chosen
their house because it was close to hospital or because of
a larger compound. With the exception of Lavington and
Parklands, neighbourhood or locality factors had hardly
influenced housing choice 'decisions elsewhere.
Under the reasons given in (i) i.e. others, the
most dominant reasons given as having influenced housing
choice are employer housing and affordable house price or
affordability of land and construction. In all the areas
apart from Lavington, Kilimani, Parklands and Plainsview,
the reasons given under (i) were of economic nature i.e.
affordable house, affordable plot and construction in that
area cheap (this reason was given in Kibera, Satelite,
Kawangware and Eastleigh). In Lavington, Kilimani,
Parklands and Plainsview, reasons given under (i) were
tenure related in that they all involved employer provided
housing.
With respect to second priority reasons, economic
related factors were still dominant as well as dwelling size
factors. However, more households gave locality and distance to work factors as having influenced housing choice
but at secondary rate. Distance to hospital was still
relatively insignificant as a housing choice factor. It
was observed that households in Kilimani and Parklands v,ho
had given bigger dwelling size as their first priority gave
locality or neighbourhood reasons as their second priority.
In Lavington, neighbourhood factors were still dominant even at secondary level. In Kibera and Kawangware, distance
173
to work was of overwhelming importance as a second
determinant factor.
In Lavington, the secondary and third priority
reasons given under (i) are good housing design while in
all the other areas, the (i) reasons in 2nd and 3rd
priorities are still largely economical or financial as
was the case in first priority reasons.
None of the households interviewed in Kibera gave
more than two reasons that influenced their housing choice,
while in Kawangware, the third most important reason why
households had moved there had been due to the areas
closeness to hospitals or medical facilities.
In Lavington, Kilimani, Parklands, Buruburu and
Plainsview, locality factors were the most important 3rd
determinants of housing choice. In Eastleigh, economic
factors dominated 3rd place in priority while in Otiende
larger compound sizes were dominant.
There are some observation to be made with
respect to housing choice factors. It was observed that
while middle to high income households gave more reasons
for their housing choices, fewer lower income households
gave second or even third housing choice determinant factors.
It was also observed that the reasons given were also related
174
to a households income level and that while lower income
households reasons were mainly of a basic type, those of
upper income households were largely non-basic. This fact
can be illustrated by the fact that while for Lavington
(high income area) households locality was the main first-
priority housing choice reason. In Kibera and Kawangware
(very low income areas), housing affordability was the most important housing choice determinant. In middle income
housing areas such as Buruburu, dwelling sizes were of
great importance. Next to economic factors, distance to
work was also a very important housing choice determinant
for low income households. Distance with relation to work
places and hospitals is also an economic factor because the
further one is from work or medical facilities, the more
expensive travelling to these places is, hence housing
choice factors for low income households are almost entirely
economic related.
For most households, first priority housing choice
factors were basic and reasons given drifted towards being
non-basic with the more reasons given.
In this analysis for reasons for choice of
current houses and areas, respondents revealed that the
most important consideration related to dwelling aspects of
the houses followed by economic factors and distance in
175
that order. It is more important to households that the
size of the housing unit be adequate and the proper type
for each individual household. It is less important that
the house be located near their place of work. However,
once a housing unit fulfils the dwelling requirements of
households and is affordable, only then is it preferable
if it is near their place of work. Hence, distance still
plays a secondary role in housing choice while the role played
by affordability is more important than distance. However,
households would be more prepared to pay a bit more for a
unit that meets their individual dwelling requirements.
This analysis like the previous one further confirms the
hypothesis.
Community Facilities and Social Amenities in Case Studies
Most of the case studies were served by several
facilities and amenities in the establishment of the estates
either within the estates themselves or in close proximity
to them.
All the areas studied were adequately provided
with shopping facilities with the only differences accruing
in the sizes of the shopping facilities and the type of
goods stocked. Study areas such as Kibera, Riruta and
Kawangware were well provided with small grocery shops and
176
open air markets. On the other hand, areas such as
Lavington, Kilimani, Parklands had in addition, to small shops
within the estates, large self-selection stores at the main
shopping centres. Households studied in these three areas
said that they did almost all their shopping within the
estates since the estate stores had adequate provisions.
In Buruburu, Otiende and Plainsview, almost all
the households studied said that they did their main
shopping in the city since the estate stores were not
adequately provided but they also all said that they shopped
for their daily necessities within the estates. Residents
in Kibera, Riruta, Kawangware said that they did all their
shopping within their residential areas and did not need to
shop in the major chain stores in town while in Umoja and
Eastleigh 35% of respondents in each case said they did
their shopping in town and only shopped for basic necessities
within the estate. The remaining 65% bought all they needed
from within the estates.
All the areas studied were provided with at least
a dispensary or health centre which are owned and operated
by the Nairobi City Commission. Most of the areas were also
served by privately operated clinics. While all the residents in Kibera and Kawangware utilised the government
owned dispensaries for all their health problems and only attended larger government hospitals for severe ailments,
177
those in Lavington, Kilima'ni and Parklands used the large
private hospitals within Nairobi or saw private doctors in
the city for less serious ailments. In Buruburu, Plainsview
and Eastleigh all the households interviewed said that they
visited private doctors either within the estates or in
the city but went to private hospitals for treatment of
serious ailments. In Umoja and Riruta Satelite, all the
residents interviewed said they visited either the
government owned dispensaries, private doctors or hospitals
according to the seriousness of their ailments.
All the study areas were also served by nursery,
primary and in a few cases such as Buruburu, Parklands,
Riruta Satelite, a secondary school within the area.
Lavington also had primary schools which had secondary
school wings. It was observed that for residents of
Kilimani, Lavington and Parklands, all the households
interviewed had their children attending either nursery
or primary schools within the estates. It was observed
also that these areas were served by schools which were
much more expensively charged compared to those in other
case studies.
In Buruburu and Otiende, 60% of nursery school
children and 45% of primary schools attended schools
within the estates while the rest attended schools either
178 -
in the city or located in‘other area, .uch a . Wa.tUnda,
parklands, Lavington etc. it was noted that the schools
attended outside these estates were more expensive ti.sn those within the estates. In Kawangwarc and K i U r i
children in all the households studied attended both
nursery and primary schools within or around thc««- ar* s«.
In Eastleigh and Umoja, 85% of household, studied had th« : r
children attending schools within these estat* :• and < :
15% had children attending schools either in the c ity or in other residential areas.
In all the areas studied where there were
secondary school going children over 80V of these chiidr*
attended schools either in other parts of the city or outside the city, this was with the exception of Lavington, Parklands and Eastleigh which had 20, 25 and 18% of hou.«- holds with secondary school children attending schoo.
within the estates.
With respect to transport means# a l l th .
died were served by public means namely, bu.t* and min es ('Matatus') . In addition, Buruburu, Kibara and UmoJ.
e also served by a commuter train service. The
travel to the c i ty in these means varied betwe
minutes but households who used private me
is to 35 minutes to get to thek time ranging between 15 to
179
The number of households dsing private cars as a means of
transport is as per the table 4.33 shown in the next page.
Table 4.33 Number of Households Using Private Cars
As a Means of Transport
Area Percentage of Respondents Using Cars
Lavington 95
Kilimani 70
Parkiands 90
Eastleigh 50
Buruburu 50
Umo j a 65
Otiende 40
Kibera 10
Plainsview 80
Satelite 40
Kawangware • 5
Source : Own Field Survey 1987/88
180
Even where respondents said that they used private
means of transport, in very few cases was this exclusive.
In most cases households admitted that they also used
public means occasionally. In areas such as Kibera and
Kawangware where use of public means was almost exclusive,
there were complaints of inadequacy or inadequate provision
of these means by residents.
All these areas studied, are adequately provided
with religious facilities. In all the areas studied, there
was at least a place of worship for each denomination found
in the area, indeed, religious facilities were the only
ones that were adequately provided in all the case study
areas.
Open spaces and playgrounds were either inadequately
provided or even not provided at all in almost all the study
areas. In very low income areas such as Kibera and
Kawangware, open spaces were non-existent. However, parking
spaces were provided in almost all the areas with the
exception of Kawangware, Eastleigh and the unplanned parts
of Kibera.
Almost all the households studied agreed that
provision of shops within their estates was of utmost
importance, this owed to the facts that there are many basic
but perishable daily necessities that cannot be bought in
181
bulk. For households who »did not own cars, it was observed
that adequate provision of means with which to commute to
work and other places was second in importance while
provision of schools and hospitals took third and fourth
places respectively. It was observed that even for house
holds who owned cars, it was felt that there should be
adequate nursery and primary schools within the neighbourhood
owing to the tender ages of children who attend these schools.
Religious facilities within the neighbourhood
ranked last in importance of facilities, however, respondents
were of the opinion that these facilities should be provided
within reasonable distance, respondents who did not own cars
felt that religious facilities should be provided within
walking distance.
On being asked whether they would move from their
houses if their income increased, the number of households
who answered on the affirmative in each case study were as
shown in Table 4.34 below.
Out of the 240 households studied, 130 of them
(57.5%) said they would move if their income increased. It
was observed that Lavington had the lowest percentage of
households who said that if their income increased they would
move to different areas/houses, Kawangware on the other hand
had the highest percentage of respondents who said that they
182
Table 4.34 Income Related Moving
Area Percentage
Lavington 20
Kilimani 55
Parklands 30
Eastleigh 50
Buruburu 83
Umoja 67
Otiende 80
Kibera 50
Plainsview 40
Satelite 55
Kawangware 85
Source: Own Field Survey 1987/88
would move out if their income increased.
It was also observed that most of the respondents
who said that they would not move out if their income increased were either owner occupiers (owned the houses that
183
they occupied) or they we^e those occupying employer
provided houses. For those who said that they would move
if their income increased, they were given the following
reasons from which to choose the one/ones that they would
be concerned with in moving.
a) To be closer to place of work
b) To get better neighbours
c) To get quieter neighbours
d) To get cleaner neighbourhood
e) To be closer to schools, hospitals, churches, shops
f) To go outside the town
g) To get bigger house
h) To get smaller house
i) To pay lower rent
j) To get better designed house
k) Others (specify).
Having been given the above list to choose from,
it was however observed that on average, households gave
only two factors (first and second priorities) that would
be of concern if they were to move on account of an
increased income.
184
The number of households who gave each reason is
shown in the Tables 4.35 and 4.36 in the next page (first
and second priority tables). It should be noted that
numbers in the first priority tables are given as
percentages of those who said they would move on account
of an income increase in each study area, while those in
the second priority table are given as percentages of those
who gave more than one reason in each study area, these
figures are, therefore, not percentages of the total number
of households studied in each area.
NB. 1. Reasons 'bed' are grouped together because
they all relate to the neighbourhood.
2. Reason given under 'k ' was 'to buy/build a house'
From the first priority table, it is clear that
most households who said that they would move if their
income increased would be concerned with getting bigger
houses or large accommodation. This implies that although
households may be dissatisfied with the inadequate dwelling
space provided in their current houses, they continue to
reside there because that is all they can afford. They
would, however, move out to larger houses if their income
could allow it.
185
Table 4.35 Income related movements
Areaa
1stbed
Priority Reasons e f g h i j k
Lavington 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 75
Kilimani 0 0 9 0 36 0 0 0 55
Parklands 0 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 66
Eastleigh 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
Buruburu 12 8 0 12 57 0 0 4 8
Umo ja 0 5 0 10 75 0 0 10 0
Otiende 25 0 19 12 25 0 0 0 19
Kibera 0 50 . 0 0 50 0 0 0 0
Plainsview 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 100
Satelite 27 18 0 0 55 0 0 0 0
Kawangware 0 41 0 0 47 0 0 12 0
Source: Field SurveyTable 4.36
Area a2nd Priority Reasons
bed e f g h i j k
Lavington 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0Kilimani 0 0 0 37.5 12.5 0 0 25 25Parklands 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 20 20Eastleigh 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 75 0Buruburu 5 5 10 5 14 0 10 52 0Umoja 0 0 0 11 18 0 0 71 0Otiende 9 0 18 9 9 0 0 55 0Kibera 0 42 0 0 29 0 29 0 0Satelite 0 27 18 0 0 18 0 36 0Kawangware 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 64 0
Source: Field Survey
186
For those househqlds in Lavington, Kilimani and
Parklands who would move out if their income increased,
majority of them would be concerned with home ownership,
i.e. they would want to move into owner-occupied houses.
This reason was also given by the entire number of house
holds in Plainsview study area who said that they would move.
For households in Eastleigh, Kibera and Kawangware, 60, 50
and 41% respectively of the households who would move if
their income increased would be concerned with acquiring
a better neighbourhood either in terms of less noise,
better neighbours or a cleaner neighbourhood.
On a first priority basis, none of the households
studied said they would move into smaller houses or would
move out so as to pay lower rent (h and i) and only a
handful would be concerned with better designed houses or
to be closer to work, schools, hospitals, churches or shops
(reasons; a and e). An insignificantly low number of
respondents said they would move outside town, i.e. move
out of the estates into the less congested peripheral
residential areas if their income increased.
With respect to the second priorities reasons, a
better designed house would be the second most important
sideration for those households who would move out on con-
account of an income rise. Only households in Kibera and
187
Lavington would not be concerned about house designs. It
can correctly be assumed that for Kibera households, a
better house design would be too luxurious a consideration.
For those in Lavington, their house designs are already
good enough and hence as a second priority all the Lavington
households who gave more than one reason for an income
related move said they would be concerned about getting
bigger houses. • Kibera, better neighbourhood would be the
main consideration. After better house design the second
most important second priority reason is bigger houses.
None of the other reasons would be significant as an income
related factor of movement.
Besides income increase, the households studied
were asked if there were any other circumstances under whichs
they would change their residences. The options below are
provided for the respondents to choose applicable
circumstances from:
a) Change of marital status
b) Change of work place
c) Change of school places
d) Change of transport mode
e) Advancement of children's ages
f) Old age.
188
There were however few households who said that%
under no circumstances would they move. The number of
these households as a percentage of all the households
studied in each area were as shown in the table below.
Table 4.37 Percentage of Households That Would Not Move
Area Percentage
Lavington 40
Kilimani 10
Parklands 40
Eastleigh 30
Kibera 20
Plainsview 10
Satelite 25
Kawangware 10
Source: Own Field Surver 1987/88
As was the case with income increase reasons of
moving, these movements are also related with tenure types,
189
most of the above households (those who would not move) are
largely either ov/ner occupiers or those who were born in
that particular area as was the case with the households
in Kawangware, Kibera and Eastleigh in these areas, there
were resipondent who were born there and felt that that was the only home they knew, the larget percentage of such cases
was however found in Parklands.
In Buruburu, Otiende and Umoja study area, all the
households studied had other reasons besides increase in
income that would make them change their residences.
From the list of circumstances given for respondents
to choose from, it was observed that households chose only
one or two reasons that would make them move. The table in
the next page represents this information and gives the
number of households who gave each reason as a percentage of
all those who gave other reasons (besides income increase)
that would make them move. This is irrespective of whether
the reason was given in singular or together with another,
i.e. the number of those who gave each reason is a percentage
of all those who responded positvely to that particular
question. The reason for this is simply that a household
would still move for either of the factors given since the
factors are not dependent upon each other.
190
The analysis of whether respondents would move if
their income increased :portrayed the relationship that exists
between dwelling attributes of housing units and affordability.
An increase in income was seen by respondents as a means to
acquiring their ultimate requirements in housing needs. To
households, therefore, dwelling attributes of housing units
and areas are the most important requirements and consideration
in choice. However, affordability facilitates or hinders
the realisation of these needs hence .the interdependence
of the two factors. This factor is further asserted by the
observation that most households who would move as a result
of income increase are in the low to middle income housing
areas. The assertion of the hypothesis is therefore
finally confirmed by this analysis.
Table 4.38 Other Circumstances for Moving
Area • Reasonsa b c d e f
Lavington 17 92 0 0 0 8Kilimani 0 67 0 0 0 78Parklands 25 67 0 0 0 33Eastleigh 36 79 0 0 0 57Buruburu 67 43 6.7 0 36.7 66.7Umo j a 0 3 0 0 63 83Otiende 0 40 0 0 0 80Kibera 0 69 0 0 0 100Plainsview 0 56 0 0 0 72Satelite 17 83 0 0 11 11Kawangware 20 67 0 0 0 53
Source: Own Field Study 1987/88
191
The most obvious feature of this table is the%
overwhelming importance of reasons (b) and (f) namely
change of work place and old age as circumstances that
would lead households to move from their residences. These
two factors are almost equal in their importance as
circumstances of residential changes, each one of them
would lead to change of residence by a great majority of
eight (8) of the eleven (11) areas studied. Change of mode
of transport would not cause any household studied to change
their residences while change of school place would influence
a mere 6.7% of all households studied in Buruburu. Advance
ment of children's aces would cause residential changes in
36.7% and 63% of households studied in Buruburu and Umoja
respectively. Change of marital status would influence an
insignificant number of households to move from their houses,
with the highest influence being 36% in Eastleigh.
It was observed that the highest number of those
who said they would move if their work places changed were
those who were housed by their employers. The other category
of these respondents were those either single person house
holds or households where members were relatively young.
Older families said they would not change residences because
of change of work place of the household head.
192
an overwhelmingly larger number of respondents%
said they would move on attainment of old age and the
consequent retirement from employment. This category
included both tenants and owner-occupiers who, it is
rightly assumed, would like to settle down in their rural homes when old.
SUMMARY
In summary it was found out that semi-detached
and detached bungalows were the most common house types
found in the study areas. Single rooms and few cases of
'Swahili type' houses were found in the very low income
areas of Kawangware and Kibera. It was observed that while low density high income areas such as Lavington and Kilimani
were characterised by small families, the high density low
income areas had large family sizes. In most of the study
areas, households were below 50 years of age. This was
explained by the fact that most Kenyan African houeholds
move to their rural homes on retirement.
Most of the household heads interviewed worked
within Nairobi either in the city centre or industrial area.
Those who worked outside Nairobi and commuted daily were
those working in the nearby areas of Kiambu and Thika and
193
were owner-occupiers. Those household heads who worked%
and lived in other towns with the rest of the family living in Nairobi also owned the house.
The areas that had high incomes were also characte
rised by higher educational levels and high numbers of working
wives compared to those areas that had low incomes. Cases
where the household head lived in Nairobi alone while the
rest of the family stayed in the rural areas was mainly found in the very low to low income areas.
With respect to racial/ethnic considerations in residential locations, it was found that certain races or
ethnic groups were to be found in particular areas. For
example, Whites were only found in the high income areas
of Lavington and Kilimani and not in any other area. Asians
comprised a significant 40% of the households studied in
Parklands while Nubis were found only in Kibera and comprised
30% of the households studied. Boranas were also mainly
found in Eastleigh (35%) and Kawangware (30%) .
It should, however, be noted that this may not be a
conscious decision by households to locate near people of
their race or ethnic background. This condition may have
been a result of implementation of land use policies based
on racial segregation which were drawn up during the country's
colonial era.
194
It was found that households who had not moved from«
their first houses were relatively younger or had been in Nairobi for shorter1 periods of time than those who had moved.
It was also found that mobility rates were related to the
incomes of households with higher income households having
higher mobility and vice versa. In high to middle income
households, mobility has direct relationship with period
lived in Nairobi in that the longer these households had
lived in Nairobi, the more times they had moved. In the low
income areas, there was no relationship between period lived
in Nairobi and mobility with respect to the first houses
occupied by those who had at least made a move. The
following observations were made:-
a) Rents were lower than current rents; tenure
types were mainly tenancies with hardly any cases of owner-occupancy or employer housing.
b) The main reasons of movements from first
houses had been independence, marriage and
home ownership in that order. There were also
job related movements. Distance and neighbour
hood movements had also occured but at less
significant numbers.
195
In second houses^occupied, the observations were:-
a) Rents had been average i.e. neither too high
nor too low. Most second houses had been in low income areas.
b) Main reasons for movement from second houses
had been home ownership, independence, marriage,
change of jobs and inadequate space in that
order.
In third houses occupied and moved out of:-
a) Rents had not exceeded 4,000/- p.m. There
were more cases of employer housing than in
previous houses.
b) Main reasons for movements had been home
ownership, change of jobs, small houses and
neighbourhood.
In analysing what factors households value in their
housing, the following observations were made:-
a) In almost all the areas, adequate size of
house was the first priority. Only in high income households was neighbourhood factors
196
given first%priority. Affordability of houses
was more important to middle and low income
households than to high income households.
b) Second priority considerations in housing
choice were affordability, size of house,
neighbourhood and distance to work factors in that order. House designs were only of
consideration to high income households while
distance to v;ork mainly influenced middle and
low income households.
c) Third priority reasons were few and generally
involved non basic consideration e.g.
neighbourhood.
The study areas were generally well served with
basic facilities such as shops, schools and medical
facilities. However, in low income areas, shcools and
transport facilities were said to be inadequate. Religious
facilities were also well provided while open spaces and
playgrounds were non-existent in most areas or mis-used inothers.
197
For those households who said they would move if%
their income increased, it was observed that:-
a) As first priority households who can afford
it would like to buy or build their own houses
while those who cannot would rent large houses.
b) On second priority, households would seek better house designs.
c) Those households who said they would not move
were all owner-occupiers.
Besides income increase, households said they would move on account of retirement, change of work place and for
fewer households, advancement of children's ages.
FOOTNOTES
1. Alonso William, Location and Land Use, Towards A General Theory of Land Rent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1964), P.18.
2. Evans, Allan W., Economics of Residential Location, MacMillan Press, London (1973), P.19 - 29.
3. Virirakis J., "Place of Residence and Place of Work". Ekistics; Reviews on the Problems and Science of Human Settlements; General Research Programme of The Athens Centre of Ekistics, Vol. 26 (1968), P. 140 - 141.
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS %
In its objectives, the study set out to investigate
what factors households take into account while making
decisions with respect to housing choices. In addition, the
study analysed socio-economic characteristics of households sampled in the eleven (11) selected localities in Nairobi
with the aim of establishing firstly, whether households of different socio-economic status give priority to similar
mobility rate and secondly, whether family ages and sizes,
races and ethnicity affect residential location decisions.
The introductory part cf this study reviews theories
of land use patterns within urban areas with the aim of
establishing to what extent, Nairobi's residential patterns
as revealed by the field study, conform to these theories.
This introductory part also attempts an analysis of the urban
housing market with the aim of noting the role played by
operations of the housing market with respect to housing allocation. It is in the second part of the study that data
on socio-economic characteristics as well as dwelling
characteristics of previous and present houses occupied by
the sampled households is analysed in order to test the
hypothesis proposed at the beginning of the study and to
carry out the said aims of the study.
199
The study found that reasons that affect households%
decisions in housing choices can be broadly categorised into
i) Dwelling Factors:
This category includes size of house, its type, design, size of compound etc.
ii) Neighbourhood Factors:
Whether area is clean, quiet, secure and facilities therein or within access.
iii) Economic Factors:
Affordable rent or price of house or land on whichto build.
iv) Tenure Factors:
Whether house is to be rented, owner-occupied or is employer provided.
v) Social Factors:
Social characteristics of the household such as ages
of members, marital status, income level, etc.
The data analysed reveals that people are very much
alike in their housing wants and that what these are depends
on the stage that their household has reached. Many people
of all socio-economic levels aspire to good quality housing
200
with a full complement of facilities. People also want«more from their housing than simply physical amenities and
are willing to forego some of these in order to achieve a satisfactory physical and social environment.
Having given the above categorisation of factors
that were given by households as influencing their choice of
residential location, the next question is whether these
factors were accorded equal importance by all households.
It was revealed that with respect to all income groups,
independence, marriage and home-ownership in that order were
the reasons that accounted for most first moves irrespective
of socio-economic status of households.
In second moves, home-ownership, marriage and change
of jobs were important for most households in that order
while for third moves, home-ownership, change of jobs and
neighbourhood factors were responsible for moves in that
order of importance. However, for high income households,
the third move had been stimulated by desire for better
neighbourhood more than anything else.
In responding to the question of why households
moved into their current houses, the difference in reasons
given by households of different socio-economic status was
apparent. Low and middle income households had moved into
their houses because the houses provided adequate space while
201
high income households had done so because they liked the%neighbourhood. As second priority reasons, low and middle
income households had considered affordability and distance to work while higher income households considered design of
house. Low income households only considered neighbourhood
as a third priority factor and even then, it was the security
factor of the neighbourhood unlike income households who
considered neighbourhood factors such as lack of noise, cleanliness, etc.
It is, therefore, a contention of this study that
the socio-economic status cf a household influences the
choice of residential location and that for low to middle
income households, their desires are of a basic nature such
as adequate space, affordable rent, reasonable distance to
work while for higher income households, their desires in
housing location are of relatively less basic nature, they
include such factors as better neighbourhood and better house
designs.
The study found that households of different socio
economic status are not equally mobile. In middle to high
income households, those who had been in Nairobi for longer
periods of time had moved more frequently than those who had
not lived in Nairobi for long, hence there was a relationship
between period lived in Nairobi and number of times that a
202
family had moved. However, for low income households, the
level of residential mobilities was generally low regardless of period of time lived in Nairobi.
The study revealed that family ages influenced the
choice of residential location. Young households were found
to move for economic reasons which decline steadily with age.
Dwelling reasons are important to the relatively young and the relatively old and neighbourhood reasons rise steadily
with age. In addition, many households felt they would like
to move or change houses as the aces of their family members
advanced while many more desire to move on attainment of old
ace by the household head. However, no relationship was
found between family size and choice of residential location.
The study found that racial and ethnic considerations
cannot be ruled out in the choice of residential location in
Nairobi. This was supported by the occurence of certain
races or ethnic groups only in particular localities and not
in any other areas. For example, Asian households were almost
exclusively found to reside in Parklands locality where 40% of
households studied were Asian origin; only a meagre 5% was
found in Lavington and none in any other area. Whites were
also found in the high income areas of Lavington and
Kilimani. Nubis were also found only in Kibera while Borans
were found only in Eastleigh and Kawangware. However, for
203
indigeneous Kenyans, there was no evidence of ethnicI
considerations in housing location choice.
In its attempt to establish whether Nairobi's
residential patterns conform to traditional theories of
location, it was found that Nairobi's residential pattern
does not absolutely fit into any of these patterns. In
Burgess' concentric zone theory, development of Nairobi's residential areas disturbs the zones proposed by Burgess
while Hoyt's radial sector theory of filtering is rendered
ineffective by operations of the housing market in Nairobi.
In the case study, no household was found to have moved
because their house was too old nor any that moved into
their current house because it was newer than their previous
one. In cases of owner occupation, owners will renovate
their house instead of moving out and even in tenancy cases,
the study revealed that factors other than age of house were
responsible for movements. The analysis of the housing
market also showed that the relationship between demand and
supply of housing units in urban areas in Nairobi in
particular renders filtering ineffective, hence a household
will hold onto their house and will only move out when
factors other than age necessitates
Hoyt's modified axial development theory emphasizes
on the importance of transportation with respect to housing
choice decision. In the case of Nairobi, this was dispelled
204
as the study has shown that distance and transportation are%
not critical determinants of location especially for high
and some middle income households. The study also showed
a tremendous desire for urban households to be located
outside the city as children grow bigger and as household
heads attain old age. This desire is fulfilled by locating
further out of the city where transportation is not as good as nearer the city.
The trade-off theory of residential location which
proposes that households locate at points of least cost
relative to city centre by trading off travel costs which
increase with distance from the city is also net very relevant
in Nairobi households' location choice because the importance
of travel costs is relatively unimportant compared to other
factors that households consider.
Nairobi's residential location pattern is shown
to have been greatly influenced by the zoning that was done
during construction of the Kenya-Uganda railway where the
best areas in terms of climate, soils, low densities and
large plot sizes were reserved for Europeans and Asians
in that order of priority. It was found that Africans who
reside in areas such as Lavington, Kilimani and Parklands
are those in the high income brackets. The areass that
were reserved for Africans are now occupied by low income
205
African households while newer planned estates such as%
Otiende, Buruburu, Plainsview are occupied mainly by
African households of middle income.
In the analysis of the urban housing market, it
was shown that besides being a question of mere shelter,
there are other attributes that are wound up with housing.
These are privacy, relative location, environment amenities
and investment. The desirability of a residence in the
market is affected by such other factors as accessibility
and costs of transportation to other urban locations among
others. The role of the housing market can, therefore, not
be ignored in that operations of the housing market are
such that for each individual, his housing choices operate
within a set of constraints rather than within a free choice
setting. Housing supply is constrained by government
policies, rate of building activity and operators of
financial institutions which combine with such household
factors as income to determine the household's capacity to
translate housing desires into actual mobility.
Recommendations
The following is a summary of the recommendations
of the study.
206
1. It is quite clear that many people see both%prestige and social status in the achievement of owner
occupation. However, the number of people who can achieve
owner-occupation is limited by financial reasons but from
the overwhelming number of people who said they would move
if their income increased so as to own houses, it is
apparent that most people aspire to be owner-occupiers.
For this reason, it is recommended that more organisations
should build houses with the aim of selling them to
occupiers as opposed to the current tendency of government
organisations such as local authorities developing houses
to rent as opposed to those fcr sale.
2. Another dimension of hosuing preference is the
distance of the home from the place of work as a function
of the cost of the accommodation and of transport. There
is an often heard assertion that low income households
'prefer' to live in areas which are close to potential jobs
than in areas further from town and industrial area. It is
the contention of this study that the fact that low income
households are normally to be found near the city and
industrial area cannot be referred to as preference for
these areas. Low income households as revealed by the study
also have other desires with respect to housing, however,
these desires are rarely realised since the kind of housing
207
that would fulfil the desires is not within economic meansI
of these households. Majority of the respondents in the
samples who were of low income could choose to live far
from town and pay for transport if rent were cheaper and
also if the house had other desirable qualities. It is
therefore recommended that low income housing schemes need
not be established only within short distance of the city
centre which gives them high densities due to unavailability of land close to the city and the high plot coverage allowed
in these areas. Low income housing schemes can be established
further out of the city to enable incorporation of other
desirable housing attributes such as privacy and good neighbourhood factors. This would not necessarily increase
the rents or prices of such houses since land would be cheaper
further away from the city.
3. The study revealed that before marriage small
houses are desired, however, due to lack of 'proper' small
affordable units in the desired areas, young unmarried people
are forced to share houses so that they are able to live in
desired areas and yet not pay more than they can afford.
For this reason, it is recommended that while planning
housing estates, there is need to incorporate single-person
houses along with larger houses for persons to live
independently and yet would find it needless to rent the
208
3 or 4 bedroom houses which are typical in planned estates.%
Thus one is forced to share or live in inappropriate houses
and moves out at the first opportunity. This case occurs
with persons who are either single or married but with
families living in rural homes while the household head lives alone in Nairobi.
4. The study found that adequate provision of space in a house is of great importance to households,
this was revealed by the large number of households who had either moved out of previous houses cue to the house being
too small or who said they would move cut if their income
increased because their present houses are too small.
However, what one household deems adequate may not be
adequate to another family depending on cultural factors
as well as household sizes. For this reason, it is
recommended that housing developers should carry out
feasibility studies to include the different sizes of x
houses that households desire, e.g. a household may find
two large bedrooms more desirable than three small ones
while another household may desire the reverse. Such
considerations should be incorporated in housing developments.
Households would also be willing to pay a bit more for a house
whose design and size caters for their personal tastes.
209
5. Several households said they would move out%on advancement of children's ages. This, it was found is
because most African households find the typical planned
estates house designs inappropriate for those with older
children. This owes to the traditional or cultural beliefs
about the distance that should be maintained between say
a father and grown up daughters. This is one aspect that
house designs completely ignore unless one is constructing
their house as opposed to buying the already developed ones. It is, therefore, recommended that house designs should be
such that they take into account this cultural aspect in
peoples lives especially in the relationship of such rooms and bedrooms and bathrooms.
Areas of Further ResearchIOwing to limitations in time and finances, it was
not possible to exhaust many issues relating to housing
location. In addition, the topic of housing location is a
broad one and cannot be exhausted in a single study like
this one. The following fields are suggested as being viable
for further research in this field:-
1. The issue of whether planners and designers
of housing in Kenya currently take adequate account of
the structure and needs of the types of families requiring
210
housing. A comparison of a planned neighbourhood and one%that is not planned by a developer but occupied by house
holds of similar socio-economic backgrounds to find out how a similar group of people would arrange their living spaces and environment.
2. An intensive study of choice of residential location with respect to households of one particular income group.
3. Relationship between traditional norms and urban class formation.
4. The role of government policies in the;current residential patterns in any Kenyan urban area.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adala Patricia, A., An Economic Study of Urban Housing
Markets in Nairobi. (Thesis) University
of Nairobi, 1978.
Alonso William, Location and Land Use; Towards a General
Theory of Land Rent: Havard University
Press, Cambridge 1964.
Basset, K. and Short, J.R., Housing and Residential
Structure. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London 1980.
Bloccberg, L.N. and Abrams C. United Nations Mission
to Kenya on Housing. United Nations.
1965.\
Bourne Larry, S. and Hitchcock John R., Urban HousingMarkets. Recent Directions in Research and
Policy Proceedings of Conference at
University of Toronto. University
Of Toronto Press 1978.
Catanese, A.J. and Synder J.C., Urban Planning. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York 1976.
Chapin Stuart F, Urban Land Use Planning. University
of Illinois Press 1976.
Coopers and Lybrand, Nairobi Housing Needs: Meeting theChallenge. Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham 1976.
212
Cooper R. James, Real Estate and Urban Land Analysis.
D.C. Heath and Co. London. 1974.
Development Planning Unit, London, Nairobi Project,
1983. London 1983.
Ericksen Gordon E., Urban Behaviour, New York: The
MacMillan Company 1954.
Evans W. Alan, The Economics of Residential Location.
Macmillan Press, London 1973.
Gattoni George and Patel Praful, Residential Land
Utilisation, Case Study, Nairobi,
Kenya. Education research Program,
Massachusets Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusets, 1973.I
Goodall Brian, The Economics of Urban Areas Pergamon
Press, New York 1972.
Hake Andrew, African Metropolis, Nairobi's Self-HelpCity. Sussex University Press, 1977.
Hansen M. Niles, The Challenge of Urban GrowthLexington Books, London 1975.
Havey Jack, Modern Economics, Macmillan Press, Hamphire
1988 .
Heibrun James, Urban Economics and Public Policy.St. Martin's Press. New York 1974.
213
Hoyt Homer, The Structure and Growth of ResidentialNeighbourhoods in American Cities, Washington D.C., U.S. Federal Housing Administration, 1939.
Hutton John, Urban Challenge in East Africa, E.A.Publishing House, 1990.
Ichoya, Jonah M. , Towards a Housing Policy For Nairobi(Thesis) University of Nairobi, 1973.
Jorgensen, N.O., Housing Policy Guideline for AfricanCountries. HRDU, University of Nairobi, 1973.
John James, Urban Geography: An Introductory AnalysisPergamon Press, Oxford, 1972.
Johnston R.J., Urban Residential Patterns, Cr. Bell andSons Ltd., New York, 1971.
Johnson R. James, and Herbert D.T., Social Areas in Cities,John Wiley and Sons London, 1976.
Kiamba, C.M., The Housing Market and the Hosing QuestionPaper prepared for Seminar on The Role of the Private Sector in Housing Development in Kenya. Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, 1980.
______________, The Role of the State in the Control ofUrban Development. Urban Land Policy for Nairobi, Kenya. Ph.D. Dissertation,University of Cambridge, 1986.
214
Kingoriah George K. , Policy Impacts on Urban Land UseI
Patterns in Nairobi, Kenya 1899-1979
Ph.D. Thesis, Indiana State University 1980.
Lean W. and B. Goodall, Aspects of Land Economics. Estates
Gazette, London 1966.
Maclennan Duncan, Housing Economics Longman, London 1982.
McGee, T.G., The Urbanisation Process in the Third World:
Explorations in Search of a Theory.G. Bell, London^ 1971.
Kieszkowski, P. and M. Straszheim, Current issues
in Urban Economics. John Hopkins
University Press, London 1979.
Muth F. Richard, Cities and housing: The Spatial Pattern
of Urban Residential Land Use. Chicago
University Press, Chicago 1969.
Nairobi City Council, Nairobi: Metropolitan Growth StrategyUrban Study Group NCC, 1973.
Nathan R. Robert Associates Inc. An Assessment of
National Housing Needs and affordability
in Kenya 1983-2003. Office of Housing
and Urban Programs Agency for International
Development. Washington D.C. March 1984.
215
Nevitt, A.A., Conference on the Economic Problems
of housing. Macmillan, London.St. Martin's Press New York,1967.
Ondiege, P.O., "Urban Housing Markets. A justification
for the Existence of Different Markets
for Different Income Groups". Proceedings of the Seminar on Interaction of Man,
Space and Environment Over Time.
University of Nairobi 1986.
Orville F. Grimes Jr., Housing For Low Income Urban
Families. John Hopkins University Press,
London 1976.
Rapkin Chester, Louis Winnick and David Blank, HousingMarket Analysis, a Study of Theory and Methods, A Housing and Home Finance Agency
Research Monography. Washington, U.S.
Government Printing Office 1953.
Rasmussen, W.D., Urban Economics. Harper and RowPublishers. New York. 1973.
Republic of Kenya, Development Plan 1984-88, Government
Printer, Nairobi 1983.
, Economic Survey 1984 . , Central Bureau of
Statistics Ministry of Finance and Planning. Government Printer, Nairobi
1983.
216
Republic of Kenya, Human Settlements in Kenya. AStrategy for Urban and Rural Development, Physical'Planning Department, Ministry of Lands and Settlement, Government Printer, Nairobi, 1978.
_____________ _, Urban Housing Survey, Basic Reports.Department of Housing, Ministry of Works, Housing and Physical Planning, Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministy of Planning and National Development Nairobi, 1986.
Robinson Ray, Housing Economics and Public Policy. StudiesIN Planning. The Macmillan Press. University of Sussex, 1979.
Romanos Michael C., Residential Spatial Structure,D.C. Heath Co. Massachusetts, 1976.
Segal David, Urban Economics. Richard D. Irvin, Inc.Irvin-Dorsey Ltd. 1977.
Soren Emig and Ismail Zahir, notes on Urban Planning ofNairobi. Roral Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture, Copenhagen,1980.
Syagga, P.M., Housing Policy and Systems in Kenya:Nairobi's Experience. International Workshop on Housing, Nairobi, 1987UNCHS - PGCHS.
217
Thompson R. Wilbur, A Preface to Urban Economics. The
John Hopkins University Press, London.
1965.
UNCHS (Habitat), Housing Policy Guidelines for
Developing Countries. New York 1976.
United Nations, World Housing Conditions and Estimated
Housing Requirements. United Nations
Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, New York 1965.
Virirakis J., Place of Residence and Place of Work.
Ekistics: Reviews on The Problems
ana Science of Human Settlements.
General Research Program of the Athens
Centre of Ekistics, Vol. 26, 1968.
Winnick Louis, Housing Market Analysis. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 1955.
Yahya Saad Saleh, The Changing Pattern of Land Use andLand Values in Suburban Nairobi,
(Thesis) 1969.
APPENDICES
QUESTIONNAIRE
Area ..................................
House type: MaisonneteFlatBungalow: Detached
: Semi Detached Room : Detached
: Semi detached
Interviewee: Owner-occupier : Tenant: Other (e.c. employer housing)
Family size ...............................
Ages of family members ...................How many members are working in Nairobi ...
How many members are working in other areas
What areas are these ....................
What are their occupations?
219
10 .
11.
12 .
13.
14.
%
Do they commute daily from work to home?
What is the age of the household head?
What is his/her education level?Primary level Secondary level College level University level Postgraduate level
What is the income level of the household head?
Between Kshs. 0 - 1,0001,001 - 2,0002.001 - 3,0003.001 - 4,0004.001 - 5,0005.001 - 6,0006.001 - 7,0007.001 - 8,0008.001 - 9,0009.001 -10,000 Over 10,000
What is the race of the household head?
AfricanAsianEuropean
2 2 0
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20 .
2 1 .
If African, what is the tribe? ..............
What is the place of work of the household head?
If not in Nairobi, how far is this place from Nairobi? .................................
What is the total family incomeKshs 0 - 1,000
2,001 - 2,0003,001 - 4,0004,001 - 5,0005,001 - 6,0006,001 - 7,0007,001 - 8,0008,001 - 9,0009,001 - 10,000
Over 10,000
How long have you been in Nairobi?
What areas have you lived in since coming to Nairobi?
What was the type(s) of house (s) that you have previously occupied?
MaisonneteFlatBungalow: detached
: semi-detached: detached. c o m i
Room
221
22. What were the rents paid for these houses?
What was the tenure type in these houses?(a) Rental Alone(b) Rental sharing(c) Parents' house(d) Owner occupied(e) Others e.g. employer housing
24.
House
FirstSecondThirdFourthFifth
Tenure Type
What was your reason for moving from each of the houses?
(a) Size of house (too large)(too small)
(b) Change of marital status - marriagedivorce
(c) Rent too high(d) Bought your own house(e) Bad Neighbours(f) Poor transport means(g) House too far from: Schools
hospital place of work shops
Others (specify)
222
House Reasons for moving%
1st house ..................
2nd house
3rd house
4th house
5th house
Why did you move into this house? (Please %note in order of preference)
(a) Close to work place(b) Close to children's schools(c) Close to hospitals(d) House is bigger(e) Rent is reasonable(f) Neighbourhood is clean(g) Neighbourhood is larger(h) Compound is larger(i) Others (please specify)
Where do you get your basic necessities from? i.e. groceries, health facilities, schooling facilities etc.
How far are these places from your house?(a) Facility ...............(b) Grocery stores ..............(c) Clinics/hospitals ..............(d) Schools ..............(e) Others ..............
What mode of transportation is available in the neighbourhood?
(a) Bus(b) Matatu(c) Train(d) Others .....
Which mode do you use(a) Car (private)(b) Bus(c) Matatu(d) Train(e) Others .....
224
30. How much time do you take to commute betweenhome and place of work using:(a) Bus .....................(b) Car .....................(c) Train .....................(d) Other ....................
31. What other facilities are available in this area(a) Schools(b) Shops(c) Open spaces(d) Playgrounds(e) Religious facilities(f) Open spaces
32. How do you consider these facilities to beimportant to you? (i.e. list the availablefacilities in order of importance)
In case of an increase in family income, would you change residence? Yes/no.
If yes, what would be the reasons for wanting to change residence?
(a) To be closer to place of work(b) To get better neighbours(c) To get quieter neighbours(d) To get cleaner neighbours
To be closer to schools, hospitals, churche shops.
225
(f) To go outside the town(d) To get bigger house(h) To get smaller house(i) To pay lower rent(j) To get better designed house(k) Others (specify) ............
Please list them in order of priority.
36. Besides income increase, under what othercircumstances would you change your residence?(a) Change of marital status(b) Change of work place(c) Change of school place(d) Advancement of chidren's ages(f) Old age